not be complete, because it is not easy to presume that the illegal act expressly acknowledges that its purpose is other than the one indicated in the norm.”163 122. Furthermore, regarding the origin of the expression, it has been indicated that: “VI. Origin of the expression The expression détournement de pouvoir (abuse of power) was first used by León Aucoc to refer to the policing powers of an administrative agent, who used these powers for reasons other than those established by positive law. Subsequently, Laferrière systematized and developed the expression to the level at which we know it today. Thus, he defined détournement de pouvoir as the irregularity consisting in diverting a legal power from the purpose for which it was established and using it for purposes for which it was not designed.” […] “Abuse of power is an offense committed by a public official or agent by issuing an administrative decision with a subjective motive that impairs the purpose of general interest that the legislator had in mind when granting the power. […] In the abuse of power, the administrative decision has a purpose that is contrary to the general interest, because the agent who issues the decision is guided by subjective or internal motives. While in the case of unreasonableness and arbitrariness, the official may act in pursuit of the purpose of the law, but the means he uses are disproportionate.”164 123. Similarly, it has been maintained that: “Theoretically, the principle of the abuse of power is applicable in three cases, in all of which the officials acts with a different objective to the one sought by the law he or she executes: a) The official acts with a personal objective: under this hypothesis, his actions are guided by revenge, partisanship, profit, etc. In these cases, even though the act responds objectively to the conditions expressly required by the law, it is illegal because it contravenes the purpose of the law; b) The official acts in order to benefit one or several third parties: this happens, also without objectively violating the law, when the official uses administrative powers in order to benefit third parties; for example, if an official is authorized to enter into direct contracts without public competitions and he contracts a certain company because it belongs to his friends and he wants to help them win the contract, etc. c) The official acts in order to benefit the administration: this is a fairly common case, and probably the one in which there is most abuse of power. The official, imbued with an erroneous statist and fiscalist spirit, as the Argentine official usually is owing to the pressure of misguided doctrinaires, seeks to exercise the power of the law to the undue benefit of the administration or of the State. Thus, he tries to collect the most fines, not to discourage non-compliance with municipal ordinances, but to obtain funds for the municipality; he uses the powers granted to him by the state of emergency (internal security) for ordinary purposes of controlling morality, etc.”165 124. For their part, authors such as Atienza and Ruiz Manero explain abuse of power as “… a species within the genus of “exces de pouvoir,” inasmuch as it is a category created to subject discretional administrative acts to judicial control.”166 According to these authors, 163 Ibidem, p. 395. 164 Barraza, Javier Indalecio, “La finalidad del acto administrativo y la desviación de poder”, Revista Ius Publicum, Universidad Santo Tomás, v. 14, No. 29, 2012, pp. 51-52. 165 Gordillo, Agustín, Tratado de derecho administrativo y obras selectas, tome 5, primeras obras, 1st edition, Buenos Aires, FDA, 2012, p. EAA-IV-18; ibíd., El acto administrativo, 1ª edición, Buenos Aires, AbeledoPerrot, 1963, reprinted as Libro II of the Tratado de derecho administrativo y obras selectas, cit., available at: http://www.gordillo.com/tome5.html and http://www.gordillo.com/pdf_tome5/02/02-capitulo4.pdf 166 Atienza, Manuel and Ruiz Manero, Juan, “Ilícitos atípicos”, Editorial Trotta, Madrid, 2000, chapter IV, section 27, p. 92. 35