A House of Representatives subcommittee has proposed the removal of the judiciary鈥檚 power to determine grave abuse of discretion in government actions and policies as part of efforts to amend the 1987 Constitution for a shift to federalism.
According to a list of salient provisions furnished to reporters by the House media bureau, the subcommittee cited 鈥渏udicial overreach鈥� in clipping the courts鈥� powers by deleting an entire phrase from Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
The deleted phrase stating the courts can 鈥渄etermine 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.鈥�
As proposed by the subcommittee, the constitutional clause would read: 鈥淛udicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.鈥�
Grave abuse of discretion is commonly defined as the 鈥渨himsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power.鈥�
Such actions by a judicial or quasijudicial tribunal or officer may thus be questioned through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Proposal denied
Despite being an official document, Deputy Speaker Fredenil Castro, the chair of the subcommittee on judiciary-related amendments, denied the proposal was ever taken up for consideration.
鈥淸On] my subcommittee, never. [On] the mother committee, I don鈥檛 think so,鈥� Castro said in a text message.
鈥淣ot much amendments/changes have been proposed except [the creation of] regional [Courts of Appeals] and abolition of [the Judicial and Bar Council] to be substituted by the Prime Minister and Commission on Appointments,鈥� he added.
The mother committee chair, Southern Leyte Rep. Roger Mercado, said by phone that subcommittee proposals were not final and 鈥渟ubject for purification through public debate.鈥�
Removing the power to look into grave abuse of discretion would be 鈥渧ery significant in the sense that it lessens the power of the judiciary to inquire into acts of the other agencies,鈥� Integrated Bar of the Philippines national president Abdiel Dan Fajardo said in a text message.
鈥淭he power of review over lower courts will continue. The removal will only reduce so-called intrusion by the judiciary into discretionary acts of the other branches,鈥� Fajardo said, referring to the executive and legislative branches of government.
鈥淚t really is a question of whether [Congress acting as a constituent assembly] wants a strong or weak judicial department,鈥� he added.
Political questions
It would also likely lead to broadening of the President鈥檚 discretion in declaring martial law once the provision was taken out.
鈥淐ertain steps toward declaration may no longer be reviewed because they may be classified as political questions so that judges may no longer reverse or revise them,鈥� Fajardo said.
Members of the left-wing Makabayan bloc condemned the subcommittee鈥檚 proposal as yet another showing of the Duterte administration鈥檚 dictatorial tendency.
Anakpawis Rep. Ariel Casilao said the proposal was 鈥渁 clear attack on the principle of accountability鈥� so the proponents could be 鈥渇ree in their unlimited abuse of power.鈥�
Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Isagani Zarate said the proposal aimed to 鈥渆masculate and weaken the power of the judiciary as coequal branch of government.鈥�
Kabataan Rep. Sarah Jane Elago called it a 鈥渕ove to further cement Duterte鈥檚 dictatorial rule.鈥�
She said 鈥渢he executive will be free to do whatever he wants without fear of legal persecution, and lesser eyes on accountability lead to greater chances of abuse of power.鈥�