‘Come to the battlefield in open terms’, former Supreme Court judges dare to former Marcos SolGen

LEGA LUMINARIES. This combined photo shows former Deputy Supreme Court Judge Antonio Carpio (left), Attorney General of the Marcos regime, Estelito Mendoza, and former Deputy Justice and Supreme Court Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales. INVESTIGATION FILES

MANILA, Philippines – “Come to the battlefield in open terms and on an equal footing with the rest of the parties.”

With these words, former Supreme Court judges Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio-Morales presented a challenge to former attorney general Estelito Mendoza, who requested to participate in the next oral argument on the petitions against the 2020 Antiterrorist Law but only as a “ amicus curiea ”or friend of the court.

Under the rules, the court invites a “friend of the court” to clarify the issues related to the subject of debate and guide the court on how to make a decision on the matter.

But in a demonstration and opposition by the group led by the two former magistrates of the High Court, they told the Supreme Court that Mendoza is deceiving the court when he offered himself as a “friend of the court” when in reality he is seeking the total dismissal of the more than 30 petitions against the controversial anti-terrorism law.

“This shows that Atty. Mendoza does not offer to help the Honorable Court solve the problems; seeks to solve the case. This is not the “provision” of which the Rules of the Court speak. In other words, an amicus curiae serves to assist the Honorable Court in the proper disposition of legal matters, which must first be identified by the Honorable Court ”, they stated.

In the case of Mendoza, who assumes the government’s position, they said that if he wants to participate in the oral arguments, he must intervene in the case.

Atty. Mendoza approaches “not as a friend of the court” but as a “friend of the defendants.” If you want glory, you must come to the battlefield in open terms and on an equal footing with the rest of the parties, ”they said.

Qualifyingly, they said that Mendoza’s experience during the years of martial law where he defended arrests and detentions made by authorities as the then attorney general does not qualify him to become amicus curiae in current petitions.

In fact, they said, the former attorney general, even with his litigation and academic experience, does not qualify him to be a “friend of the court” citing Rule 138 Art. 36 of the Rules of the Court, which, among others, require that one be impartial.

In the case of Mendoza, he has already expressed his position and that is due to the dismissal of the petitions against the Antiterrorist Law of 2020, they stressed.

The former Senior Associate Judge and former Ombudsman added that “there is nothing wrong with being on parity with other litigants if one seeks to promote a cause” given that some parties calling for the annulment of the anti-terrorism law have “a stature and qualifications considerable equal to or greater than Atty’s. Mendoza ”.

Furthermore, they emphasized that the higher court has never allowed someone to invite themselves as amicus curiae.

“Thus, beyond the procedural inequalities that it will generate, even in a substantive matter, its desired participation does not inspire confidence as to the level of assistance that it could potentially offer as amicus curiae to the Honorable Court. Consequently, their request for permission must be denied and the accompanying comment must be ignored, ”they added.

Joining Carpio and Morales in their original petition against the antiterrorist law are the Associate Dean of UP and the Director of the Institute of Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea Jay Batongbacal, the former head of the Supreme Court of PIO and now professor of Law at the UP Theodore Te, and attorneys Victoria Loanzon and Anthony Charlemagne Yu.

The Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) also presented a similar opposition to Mendoza’s offer, calling it “frivolous and delaying” and “disruptive to the orderly administration of justice.”

According to FLAG, Mendoza’s experience as attorney general during the martial law era is not the kind of experience the superior court looks for in a “friend of the court.”

Mendoza, in his petition filed last month, said that the petitions against the 2020 Antiterrorist Law were filed prematurely and should be dismissed for lack of “real controversy involving an enforceable and legally enforceable right.”

He explained that criminal law as the controversial measure cannot exist without the commission of any act and that the petitioners have not proven that any act they have questioned and questioned was committed by the accused.

With this, he emphasized that there cannot be “a real controversy that involves rights that are legally enforceable and enforceable.”

Likewise, it said that the petitions do not sufficiently allege that the petitioners have committed any act in violation of the antiterrorist law to re-generate a real controversy over the exercise of the judicial power.

Mendoza specifically referred to the petitions presented by the Carpio group and that of the lawyer Howard Calleja, who was the first group to challenge the constitutionality of the antiterrorist law before the Supreme Court.

The anti-terrorism law is to date the most controversial law in the country’s history with more than 30 petitions questioning its constitutional basis.

KGA

RELATED STORY

Ex-Marcos SolGen wants the petitions against the antiterrorist law to be dismissed

Read next

EDITOR’S SELECTION

MOST READ

Don’t miss the latest news and information.