<div class="image-550">
<img src="https://cdn.kahimyang.com/resources-9/lagman-mendoza-sm.webp" alt="Edcel Lagman and Estelito Mendoza" loading="lazy" />
<div>
(Edcel Lagman and Estelito Mendoza)
</div>
</div>

Last month, veteran lawyer Estelito Mendoza asked the SC to allow him to join the litigation as an amicus curiae (friend of the court). Mendoza said he can offer valuable arguments on account of his vast experience in defending the constitutionality of national security laws when he was the solicitor general during the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos.


As an opening salvo, Mendoza said the petitions ought to be dismissed outright for, among others, failure to raise an actual justiciable controversy.

Mendoza's tenure as Solicitor General is the longest in Philippine history, having assumed office on 1 July 1972 and having served until the end of the Marcos administration on 25 February 1986. He was largely successful in defending national security laws during that period.


Anti-administration personalities are not very happy to learn that Mendoza wants to join the fight.


Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said Mendoza's overture to the SC "does not befriend the High Court but demeans its jurisdiction."


According to Lagman "An amicus curiae must impartially advise the court on the issues pending adjudication, but never deceive the court by misleading arguments". He added that the repressive policies of President Marcos are replicated in the Anti-Terror Act.


Whether or not Mendoza can actually convince the SC to uphold the validity of the Anti-Terror Act is, at the moment, a matter of speculation.


What cannot be denied, however, is that if Mendoza is allowed to participate in the ongoing legal battle, he will be able to provide insights about national security legislation, insights which can actually help the SC weigh all considerations before arriving at its final decision.


In a ruling rendered just last March, the SC declared that under ideal circumstances, there should be "that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions."


Precisely because of his extensive role in defending national security laws under the Marcos administration, Mendoza can provide that "concrete adverseness" contemplated by the SC, to sharpen the issues presented in the ongoing litigation regarding the constitutionality of the Anti-Terror Act.


Truth to tell, Lagman's objections against Mendoza's participation in the litigation are groundless. They are also unprovoked and unwarranted discourteous remarks against a fellow lawyer.


First, Lagman has not explained how allowing Mendoza to join the litigation as amicus curiae "demeans the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court". Mendoza has a right to plead his position in the SC in the same way that the petitioners in the Anti-Terror Act case are pleading theirs.


Next, Lagman has already taken it upon himself to unilaterally declare that Mendoza's arguments are misleading. Arguments which Lagman may not agree with are not necessarily misleading.


Finally, Lagman's sweeping view that the Anti-Terror Act replicates the "repressive policies" of President Marcos is not a ground to disallow Mendoza from joining the fight in the Supreme Court.

Edcel Lagman is so scared of Estelito Mendoza being "friend of the court"