Two former justices of the Supreme Court, co-petitioners in one of the 31 petitions against the anti-terror law, moved to block the participation in the case of influential Estelito Mendoza, a solicitor general during the time of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos.

“Considering Atty. Mendoza’s claimed experience fails to meet the standards prescribed in the above jurisprudence, then his participation as amicus curiae is not warranted,” retired Supreme Court justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio Morales said in a manifestation submitted to the Court on Tuesday, September 9.

In a separate pleading, the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), which represents opposition lawmakers in one of the petitions, also moved to expunge from the records Mendoza’s motion.

Mendoza, who had won many big cases at the Supreme Court, asked the Court for permission to act as an amicus curiae, which in Latin means friend of the court. Amici curiae are usually invited by the Court for their expertise and to guide the justices in their decisions.

One of Mendoza’s remarkable wins in the Supreme Court was when he managed to convince justices to flip-flop on two previous decisions, thus handing to his client, Philippine Airlines (PAL), a victory in one of the biggest labor cases in the country.

Mendoza was able to revive that case and reverse the fates in favor of his client only on the basis of a letter, a “violation” that dissenter Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said “eroded the reliability and credibility of this Court.”

Like the “highly irregular and suspect” mode with which Mendoza revived the PAL case, according to dissenters, Carpio and Morales said the lawyer’s request to be an amicus curiae is also a circumvention.

Carpio and Morales said Mendoza cannot act as amicus curiae without an invitation. Mendoza is also obviously trying to intervene in favor of the Duterte government, but couched that move in a seemingly benign act as requesting to be an amicus curiae, said the pleadings.

Carpio and Morales also said Mendoza has not exhibited expertise in the newly-passed anti-terror law that the petitioners don’t already have.

The petitioners, who include lawmakers under whose terms the law was enacted, would have better expertise than him, said the pleadings.

The Supreme Court has not yet given a date for the oral arguments, although it earlier said it will most likely be held by end of September. Solicitor General Jose Calida has moved to cancel the oral arguments.

Not martial law

Carpio and Morales also took a swipe at Mendoza for pointing out that as Marcos’ solicitor general, he has experience defending the infamous Arrest Search and Seizure Orders (ASSOs) of Martial Law. The law’s critics said the anti-terror law’s arrest and detention provisions eerily resemble the ASSOs.

“(Mendoza’s) record of defending the ASSOs issued by the Marcos dictatorship may be extensive, but unless the OSG agrees that present circumstances have placed the nation under Martial Law, would be out of point,” said Carpio and Morales.

In the anti-terror law petitions, Mendoza echoed Calida’s position that the petitions lack the legal standing because there is no actual injury suffered yet to test the constitutionality of the anti-terror law.

The Duterte-time law is seen as a big threat to fundamental freedoms by setting up wide legal crackdowns on terrorists. Petitions also said it would target any type of dissent.

FLAG warned the Supreme Court that to allow Mendoza to intervene via the irregular motion to be an amicus curiae “would set a dangerous precedent.”

“More importantly, it will complicate constitutional litigation before this Honorable Court,” said FLAG.

FLAG also urged the Supreme Court to impose disciplinary sanctions on Mendoza “including but not limited to contempt.”

“As an alleged expert, Mr. Mendoza is presumed to know that his submission is frivolous and dilatory and therefore is in bad faith. It is disruptive to the orderly administration of justice because he is adding a frivolous submission to the already voluminous records of these consolidated petitions, and therefore is susceptible to sanctions,” said FLAG.

In the Supreme Court, Mendoza has scored a plunder acquittal for former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and a bail grant for plunder defendant former senator Juan Ponce Enrile.

In the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan, Mendoza got Senator Bong Revilla acquitted of plunder. – Rappler.com