Introduction
Unique from the United States constitution
which our present constitution is patterned from, the Philippine Supreme Court
is not only vested with judiciary power but also includes the duty to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
government.[1]
To wit, Article 8, Section 1 which expresses the power of
the Supreme Court states:
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and
in such lower courts as may be established by law. The judicial power includes
the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether
or not there has been a grave abuse or discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.
The addition was introduced because of the frequency with
which the Supreme Court had appealed to the “political question” doctrine
during the period of martial law, it is not meant to do away with the political
questions doctrine itself.[2]
What is the
definition of Grave abuse of Discretion?
The exercise of power in an arbitrary or
despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.[3] Such capricious
and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of
positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act
at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary
and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.[4]
There is grave abuse of discretion (1) when
act is done contrary to the constitution, the law or jurisprudence; or (2) when
it is executed whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will
or personal bias. In the present case, the Commission on Elections awarded the
subject contract not only in clear violation of law and jurisprudence, but also
in reckless disregard of its own bidding rules and procedure.[5]
Coverage
In recent jurisprudence, any branch or instrumentality of
the government covers even independent bodies such as Electoral Tribunal,
political parties and the House of Representatives and administrative agencies.
Even the act of the President is covered as enunciated in the case of Lacson v.
Perez[6],
where the President called the armed forces to mend the increasing criminality
in the country.
Conclusion
The power to determine grave abuse of
discretion has given the Supreme Court the right to check co-equal branches of
government for abuse. For us law students,
it is important to understand the unique power granted by the constitution to
our Supreme Court since this allows the Supreme Court to be not just the court
of last resort,
[1] Article
8, Section 1 of the Constitution of the Philippines
[2] BERNAS, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines: A Commentary, p.952, 2009 Ed.
[3] Jalandoni vs. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 115239-40, 2
March 2000
[4] Sinon vs. Civil
Service Commission, G.R. No. 101251, 5 November 1992
[5] Infotech
Foundation, et al. V. COMELEC, G.R. No. 159139, January 13, 2004
[6]
Lacson v. Prez, G.R. No. 134577, November 18, 1998
