Inhibit vs. Recuse

[Eduardo (Jay) Olaguer]

I'm so tired of hearing Filipino newspapers refer to judges or lawmakers as "inhibiting" themselves, meaning that they withdraw from participating in a decision due to a conflict of interest. Why don't they use the word "recuse" instead of "inhibit"? Those who recuse themselves are known as "recusants," like the English Catholics who withdrew from attending Anglican "masses" during the English Reformation.

[Joe Carillo]

I agree with you that “recuse” is the more precise word for the act of lawmakers of withdrawing from participation in collective decision-making owing to a conflict of interest. For some strange reason, however, “inhibit” has gained more traction than “recuse” in Philippine usage. Perhaps a lawyer among the Forum members can share with us an insider’s insight on this evident usage discrepancy.

Here’s how my digital Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary defines the two words:

recuse
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form: recused ; recusing
Etymology: Middle English, to refuse, reject, from Anglo-French recuser, from Latin recusare
Date: 1949

 : to disqualify (oneself) as judge in a particular case;  broadly   : to remove (oneself) from participation to avoid a conflict of interest
  –recusal  noun 

inhibit
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin inhibitus, past participle of inhibēre, from in- ²in- + habēre to have — more at HABIT
Date: 15th century

transitive verb 
1 : to prohibit from doing something
2 a : to hold in check  : RESTRAIN  b : to discourage from free or spontaneous activity especially through the operation of inner psychological or external social constraints
intransitive verb   : to cause inhibition
synonyms see FORBID
  –inhibitive  adjective 
  –inhibitory  adjective

Indeed, no matter how I look at it, “inhibit” just doesn’t seem to capture the idea or context that the lawmakers are using it for.