Back

Joker Arroyo, Lagman, Osmena, et al vs Jose de Venecia, Daza, et al [CONCURRING OPINION, VITUG J.]

JOKER P. ARROYO, EDCEL C. LAGMAN, JOHN HENRY R. OSMENA, WIGBERTO E. TANADA, AND RONALDO B. ZAMORA, petitioners, vs. JOSE DE VENECIA, RAUL DAZA, RODOLFO ALBANO, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE, AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents.

G.R. No. 127255 | 1997-08-14

VITUG, J ., concurring:

When the 1987 Constitution has embodied, in its circumscription of judicial power under Section 1, Article VIII, of the Constitution, the determination of whether or not there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government, the Supreme Court, upon which that great burden has been imposed, could not have been thought of as likewise being thereby tasked with the awesome responsibility of overseeing the entire bureaucracy. The term grave abuse of discretion has long been understood in our jurisprudence as, and confined to, a capricious and whimsical or despotic exercise of...