Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Filipino judge (born 1947)
For the Filipino sculptor, see Jose M. Mendoza.
From 1980 to 1985, he worked as an associate in the Alampay Alvero Alampay Law Office before rejoining the Judiciary in 1985 as a confidential attorney in the Supreme Court, serving under Justices Nestor Alampay and Abdulwahid Bidin.
Career in the judiciary
Mendoza became a member of the Bench in 1989 when he was appointed presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Santa Cruz, Laguna. He eventually became the executive judge of the same court in 1992. In 1994, he was designated presiding judge, and later on as executive judge, of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court. After 15 years as a judge, he was appointed Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals on July 4, 2003.
His first major decision as a member of the Supreme Court was the controversial Biraogo vs. Truth Commission, where he struck down as unconstitutional PresidentBenigno Aquino III's Executive Order No. 1 creating a Truth Commission to investigate corruption during the administration of former PresidentGloria Macapagal Arroyo. Together with nine of the 15-member tribunal, he invalidated the executive order because of its apparent transgression of the equal protection clause for singling out the Arroyo administration. In his ponencia, Mendoza blatantly tagged Aquino's Truth Commission "as a vehicle for vindictiveness and selective retribution."
Justice Mendoza also wrote the high tribunal's decision in Imbong vs. Ochoa striking down as unconstitutional eight major provisions of the highly divisive Reproductive Health Law (RH Law), which was strongly opposed by religious conservatives in the country. Mendoza nonetheless upheld the validity of the remaining provisions of the RH Law despite his strong affiliation with the influential Catholic Church. In his ponencia, the magistrate highlighted the constitutional principle of separation of church and state, stressing that "the church cannot impose its beliefs and convictions on the State and the rest of the citizenry. It cannot demand that the nation follow its beliefs, even if it sincerely believes that they are good for the country."
