The amici curiae, friends of the court

An amicus curiae and its plural form amici curiae are Latin terms for "friend of the court" which are individuals or organizations that are not a party to a lawsuit but helps the judge by offering information, expertise, or legal advice on a case.

The function of an amicus curiae is to share specialized knowledge, historical context, or technical data that the main parties might not present. He or she is not a party to the pending case. He or she has no partisan interest in the outcome of the pending litigation. An amicus curiae is a generally-recognized expert, a retired magistrate, a learned academic, a famous Law dean or Law professor or an acclaimed writer and commentator whose opinions carry weight and credibility.

In American judicial jurisdiction, the appearances of amici curiae is governed by the U.S. Rules of Court, specifically Rule 37 which outline consent requirements, formatting, and strict filing deadlines. Generally, an amicus brief requires written consent from all parties or explicit leave (permission) from the court (government entities are often exempt from needing consent). The U.S. Federal Court Rules of Appellate Jurisdiction also govern the functions of amici curiae before appellate tribunals.

In Philippine jurisdiction, Rule 36 of the Philippine Rules of Court provides: "The courts may invite experienced and impartial attorneys to appear as amici curiae to help in the disposition of issues submitted to them." The appearance of amici curiae is subject to the grace or the sole discretion of the court. No plaintiff or respondent or defendant can force the court to admit an amicus curiae, much less can an amicus curiae force his or her way into the court.

Moreover, the amici curiae are like expert witnesses but they cannot testify on the facts of the case. They should focus their explanation and discussion on the law, the meaning, nuances, and intricacies of the law. Furthermore, their opinions are only persuasive and not binding on the court. Their opinions may be totally or partially accepted or cited as the basis for a ruling. But their views can also be totally or partially rejected by the court. Their opinions are mere inputs to decision making. They cannot constitute the judgment itself.

Retired Supreme Court magistrates (such as former chief justices Artemio Panganiban and Reynato Puno, and retired associate justice Adolf Azcuna) have frequently been tapped to act as independent amici curiae to advise on critical constitutional thresholds, such as conviction requirements in high-profile impeachment proceeding. These wise former members of the highest court of the land are considered icons of legal wisdom in our country.

But our own retired chief justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., I believe, has the superior credentials as a delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention and as Commissioner of the 1986 ConCom. He was Comelec chairman and member of the Batasan Pambansa. CJ Davide was an ambassador extraordinary plenipotentiary and the Philippines’ permanent representative to the United Nations. He is the only one who was in the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary, aside from the Comelec, a constitutional commission and in foreign affairs.

Although not all of us do concur with CJ Davide's view on 16 as the number cast in stone as the threshold number for conviction and seven for acquittal, we should listen to him and the other learned jurists. Our views are no match to the nuggets of their legal wisdom and erudition.