The Constitution guarantees the right of a person to a speedy disposition of cases -- be they criminal or civil before the courts, or administrative proceedings before quasi-judicial agencies of the government.

However, the Supreme Court (SC) reminded litigants that “the invocation of the constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases is not without limitations.”

It said: “In determining whether dismissal is warranted on the ground of violation of this right, courts shall always take into account the facts and circumstances of the case. Only when the delay is inordinate shall the court grant relief.”

The reminder was issued by the SC in its decision that dismissed the petition filed by six Manito, Albay town officials who challenged the 2018 resolution of the Sandiganbayan which denied their plea to junk the graft case filed against them. The decision, which was made public last Nov. 4, was written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez.

Denied was the petition filed by Mayor Carmencita Carretas Daep, and town officials Ameife Lumen Lacbain, Dioscoro Asaytuno Ardales, Roberto Toledo Alvares, Arnold Banzuela Calsina and Ernesto Mata Millena.

It was not known immediately if they are still incumbent officials of the town since the case was filed against them in 2016 before the Sandiganbayan based on alleged irregular transactions in 2004.

With the denial of their petition, the SC directed the Sandiganbayan to resolve the case “with due and deliberate dispatch.”

The six town officials were charged by the Office of the Ombudsman with causing undue injury to the government and giving unwarranted benefits to Hexaphil Agriventures, Inc., a firm that was not allegedly registered with the government, in the purchase of 4,285 bottles of liquid fertilizer at P700 per bottle.

Case records showed that the criminal case was filed against the six town officials on Aug. 3, 2016. On Aug. 16, 2016 they asked the Sandiganbayan to dismiss the charges due to, among other issues, alleged inordinate delay in the preliminary investigation conducted by the OMB.

They said the complaint against them was filed on May 16, 2011 and they submitted their counter-affidavits on Sept. 12, 2011. But they said it took the OMB more than three years or until Oct. 22, 2014 to finish the investigation in violation of their right to speedy disposition of their case.

On Feb. 1, 2017, the Sandiganbayan ruled there was probable cause to hold them for trial and there was no inordinate delay in the filing of the case.

The anti-graft court said that while it took the OMB three years to terminate the preliminary investigation, the prosecution was able to explain that the case consisted of complex issues, voluminous documents, and various witnesses.

On June 14, 2018, the accused filed another motion to dismiss the charges, also on alleged violation of their constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases.

On Oct. 16, 2018, the Sandiganbayan denied their motion. When their motion for reconsideration was denied on Nov. 27, 2018, the six town officials elevated the issue before the SC.

They accused the Sandiganbayan of grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the case against them on the ground of inordinate delay.

The delay, they told the SC, caused them undue prejudice since their witnesses were no longer available and some of the documents they needed for their defense could not be found anymore.

In its answer to the petition, the OMB’s Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) told the SC the case filed against the six town officials was among many cases involving P729 million funds of the Department of Agriculture for the purchase of fertilizer.

The OSP said the period that lapsed from the conduct of the preliminary investigation until the filing of the case before the Sandiganbayan was necessitated by the complexity of financial interest and business dealing involved, the number of parties investigated, and the review of the voluminous documents and records in relation to the claims and defenses of the parties.

At the same time, the OSP told the SC that the six town officials were on bail and were “at liberty to move and do so as they will."

It said a mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved in the investigation of the case was not sufficient to justify the alleged inordinate delay.

In resolving the issue, the SC ruled as it also cited previous decisions:

“Neither the Constitution nor the applicable law in this case, R.A. No. 6770 (the Ombudsman Act) provides for the specific period within which an action is deemed "prompt,’ a deviation from which is considered violative of the right to a speedy disposition of cases.

“It is true that the Rules of Court and the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman provide for the periods within which preliminary investigation should be conducted by the Ombudsman.

“This Court, however, in a line of cases, has ruled that a mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient, and that the fact that the preliminary investigation was terminated beyond the periods provided by the rules, is not, in itself, violative of the right to a speedy disposition of cases.

“What jurisprudence teaches us is that the right to a speedy disposition of cases is a relative and flexible concept and that the assertion of the right ultimately depends on the peculiar circumstances of the case.

“Moreover, the right is deemed violated only when there is inordinate delay, such that the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause or unjustifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.

“At this juncture, this Court takes judicial notice that at the time the complaint was filed against petitioners, similar complaints were also initiated by the Task Force Abono against other people who may have been involved in the Fertilizer Fund Scam.

“Thus, considering the number of government officials and private persons that may have been involved, the volume of documents and records in the relevant transactions, and the intricacy of the issues, the disposition of the cases by the Ombudsman necessarily took some time.

“The influx of cases involving the Fertilizer Fund Scam also inevitably congested the dockets of the Ombudsman, which, of course, was simultaneously dealing with other complaints of different nature. It would not be unreasonable, therefore, to allow the Ombudsman some allowance for the supposed delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation in the present case.

“In this regard, this Court agrees with the OSP that petitioners' (six town officials) claim of undue prejudice was self-serving and unsubstantiated. According to petitioners, they suffered undue prejudice because their witnesses are no longer available and some of the documents they could have used for their defense cannot be found anymore.

“Aside from their bare assertion, however, petitioners failed to substantiate their claim. For one, petitioners failed to state who their supposed witnesses were and the reason for their unavailability. There was also no mention of what documents were allegedly no longer available, and how those would have helped the defense of the accused.

“The failure of petitioners to substantiate their allegations leaves this Court no choice but to conclude that the claimed undue prejudice is more imaginary than real. As held by the Court, ‘prejudice cannot be established by conjectural supplications of prejudice or by dubious invocation of constitutional rights.’

“From the foregoing, this Court rules that while it took the Special Panel more than three (3) years to issue a Resolution, and another four (4) months for the Ombudsman to approve it, the delay was not inordinate, but was brought about only by the nature and peculiar circumstances of the case.

“While there was delay, it was not vexatious, capricious, and oppressive as to ‘constitute a violation of the petitioners' right to speedy disposition of cases.

“Lest it be misunderstood, this Court will not hesitate to dismiss a case on the ground of a violation of the constitutional right of the accused to a speedy disposition of cases. The invocation of this right, however, is not without limitations.

“After all, the administration of justice does not deal primarily with speed and delay, when reasonable under the circumstances, does not by itself violate the right of accused to a speedy disposition of cases.

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DISMISSED. The Resolutions dated Oct. 16, 2018 and Nov. 27, 2018 of the Sandiganbayan in SB-16-CRM-0459 are hereby AFFIRMED. The Sandiganbayan is DIRECTED to RESOLVE SB-16-CRM-0459 with due and deliberate dispatch. SO ORDERED.”