Grave Abuse of Discretion

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, but also the protector of our rights and the defender of  our constitution.

---

[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