Carpio, Carpio-Morales oppose Estelito Mendoza bid to ‘intervene’ in anti-terror law cases

Retired Supreme Court justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio-Morales and other challengers of the anti-terrorism law have opposed what they said was an attempt by former solicitor general Estelito Mendoza to "intervene" in the case in support of the government.

Mendoza, the late president Ferdinand Marcos' solicitor general, had asked the SC to allow him to assist in the resolution of issues over the anti-terrorism law as an amicus curiae ("friend of the court"). In a petition filed last month, he recommended the dismissal of the petitions against the measure.

An amicus curiae is an "experienced and impartial" lawyer who may be invited by the SC to help in the resolution of pending issues, according to the Rules of Court.

In response, Carpio, Carpio-Morales, and law professors at the University of the Philippines said Mendoza had actually filed a motion to intervene on behalf of the respondent government officials.

"By seeking the outright dismissal of the constitutional challenges to the ATA (Anti-Terrorism Act), he cannot act as an impartial friend of the Honorable Court, as his interests are now wed with those of the Respondents," they said in a court filing this week.

"Atty. Mendoza is approaching, not as a 'friend of the court,' but as a 'friend of the Respondents.' If he desires glory, he should come to the battlefield on open terms, and on equal footing as the rest of the parties," they added.

The petitioners further claimed that Mendoza "undeservedly belittles the able representation" by the Office of the Solicitor General, led by Jose Calida, in responding to the petitions.

Aside from questioning Mendoza's neutrality, the petitioners also said the veteran lawyer does not have the "relevant experience" needed from an amicus curiae.

They said Mendoza's self-cited qualifications—"length of practice, stint as faculty, attendance in international conferences, and previous public office"—are "insufficient," adding that if this was the standard, then most of the petitioners and their lawyers "would very well qualify as amici curiae."

Experts in and representatives of different fields and sectors have joined forces to seek the nullification of the anti-terror law—apart from Carpio and Carpio-Morales, some of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, former and incumbent lawmakers, professors, lawyers, labor groups, students, religious and ethnic minorities, artists, and journalists have also filed petitions.

Considering this range of expertise, the former SC justices and their co-petitioners said Mendoza, whom they claimed has "tangential experience" at best, "does not, with respect, add value to the instant proceedings."

They added that an amicus curiae cannot "dictate" the SC how to resolve a case.

"That Atty. Mendoza has taken upon himself to do so unfortunately shows that he is not the right person to serve as amicus curiae to the Honorable Court in these cases," they said.

The Free Legal Assistance Group, representing Senators Francis Pangilinan and Leila De Lima and several others, have also asked the SC to deny Mendoza's petition. — BM, GMA News