Case Summary (G.R. No. 120223)
Parties
- Petitioners: Hal McElroy and Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd.
- Respondents: Hon. Ignacio M. Capulong (in his judicial capacity) and Juan Ponce Enrile
Key Dates
- 1987: Conception of six-hour docu-drama mini-series entitled “The Four Day Revolution”
- December 16, 1987: McElroy informs Enrile of the project and encloses full synopsis
- December 21, 1987: Enrile refuses authorization for use of his name or likeness
- February 23, 1988: Enrile files complaint with application for TRO and preliminary injunction (RTC Makati Branch 134, Civil Case No. 88-151)
- February 24, 1988: RTC issues ex parte TRO
- March 16, 1988: RTC grants writ of preliminary injunction prohibiting production and any reference to Enrile or any similar fictional character
- March 22–23, 1988: Petitioners file consolidated certiorari petitions (G.R. Nos. L-82380, L-82398) with urgent prayer for injunctive relief
- March 24, 1988: Supreme Court grants limited TRO allowing production except references to Enrile
- April 29, 1988: Supreme Court renders final decision
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution:
• Article III, Section 4 – Freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press
• Implied right of privacy under due process guarantee (Article III, Section 1) - Jurisprudential Authorities:
• Gonzales v. Katigbak (freedom to produce motion pictures)
• Lagunzad v. Vda. de Gonzales (limits on fictionalized biographies and right of privacy for public figures)
• U.S. precedents on prior restraint and public-figure privacy
Facts
- Petitioners planned a six-hour “docu-drama” series reenacting the EDSA Revolution through four fictional characters interwoven with actual documentary footage.
- They secured endorsements from government agencies and informal approval from Fidel V. Ramos.
- Enrile, a key historical figure in the Revolution, objected to any use of his name or likeness; petitioners removed references to him.
- Enrile then sought judicial relief, alleging invasion of privacy by producing the film without his consent.
- The RTC issued a TRO and, after hearing, a preliminary injunction halting all production and any depiction or proxy character resembling Enrile, conditioned on a ₱2,000,000 bond.
- Petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via petitions for certiorari, challenging the injunction as an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.
Issue
Does the issuance of a preliminary injunction and TRO against the production and filming of “The Four Day Revolution,” on the ground of Enrile’s asserted right of privacy, unlawfully restrain petitioners’ freedom of speech and expression under the 1987 Constitution?
Legal Analysis
- Freedom of Speech and Expression in Film
- Motion pictures constitute a protected medium of mass communication (Gonzales v. Katigbak).
- Commercial nature of the activity does not diminish constitutional protection.
- Right of Privacy
- Recognized as the “right to be let alone,” subject to limitations when public interest is involved.
- A public figure’s right of privacy is narrower; public interest in historical events outweighs privacy claims regarding those events.
- Prior Restraint Doctrine
- Prior restraints on expression carry a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality; valid only upon showing of a clear and present danger.
- Here, the film was uncompleted at injunction issuance, making any alleged invasion hypothetical and insufficient to justify prior restraint.
- Balancing Test
- The Revolution is a matter of paramount public concern and historical record.
- Enrile’s role in those public events may be depicted truthfully and without license so long as no private or intimate aspects of his life are portrayed.
- Petitioners must avoid knowing or reckless misreprese
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 120223)
Parties
- Petitioners
• Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. (formerly doing business also as McElroy & McElroy Film Productions)
• Hal McElroy, an Australian filmmaker - Private Respondents
• Hon. Ignacio M. Capulong, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch 134
• Juan Ponce Enrile, former Defense Minister and later Senator
Facts
- In 1987, petitioners conceived a six-hour docu-drama mini-series entitled The Four Day Revolution chronicling the 1986 EDSA People Power uprising.
- Petitioners secured endorsements from the Movie Television Review and Classification Board, other government agencies, and General Fidel V. Ramos.
- On December 16, 1987, Hal McElroy wrote to Juan Ponce Enrile, enclosing a detailed synopsis and seeking his approval to depict his role.
- Enrile replied on December 21, 1987, flatly refusing consent to use his name, likeness, or any family reference, demanding their deletion from the script.
- Petitioners acceded to that demand and proceeded to film, removing any explicit references or characters bearing resemblance to Enrile.
Synopsis of the Proposed Film
- Docu-drama format combining four fictional protagonists with real events and documentary footage.
- Four central fictional characters:
• Tony O’Neil, an American TV journalist
• Angie Fox, an Australian photojournalist
• A Reform Army Movement Colonel (fictitious composite)
• Ben Balano, a Manila newspaper editor, and his two daughters, Celie and Eva - Storyline spans from the assassination of Senator Aquino to the February 1986 Revolution and Marcos’s exile.
Procedural History
- February 23, 1988: Enrile filed Civil Case No. 88-151 for invasion of privacy, seeking TRO and preliminary injunction.
- February 24, 1988: RTC Makati Branch 134 issued ex parte Temporary Restraining Order.
- March 9, 1988: Petitioners moved to dismiss and opposed the injunction.
- March 16, 1988: RTC granted writ of preliminary injunction ordering cessation of all production and prohibition of any references to Enrile or similar fictional characters.
- March 22–23, 1988: Petitioners filed separate petitions for certiorari with urgent prayers for injunctive relief before the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 82380 & 82398).
- March 24, 1988: SC consolidated the petitions, granted a limited TRO permitting resumed prod