G.R. No. 127255 , August 14, 1997.
Joker P. Arroyo, Edcel C. Lagman, John Henry R. Osmeña, Wigberto E. Tañada, 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.

FACTS

The provided text is a Concurring Opinion by Justice Vitug in the case. The petitioners, who are members of Congress, filed a petition against respondents including the House Speaker, other members of Congress, and executive officials. The nature of the petition itself is not detailed in the provided text, but it concerns an act by Congress that the petitioners are challenging.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can review the contested act of Congress absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to a patent disregard of a Constitutional proscription.

RULING

Justice Vitug, in his concurring opinion, voted to deny the petition. He held that the expanded judicial power under the 1987 Constitution , while allowing review of political questions when grave abuse of discretion is shown, does not task the Supreme Court with overseeing the entire bureaucracy. Grave abuse of discretion is defined as a capricious, whimsical, or despotic exercise of judgment amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. He found no such abuse in the case at bar. Absent a clear case of grave abuse, such as a patent disregard of a Constitutional prohibition, the Court must respect the judgment of Congress, a co-equal branch, to avoid unwarranted intrusion. He reiterated his separate opinion in Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance.