For violation of the constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases, the Supreme Court (SC) has reversed the June 23, 2021 resolution of Commission on Elections (Comelec) which ordered the filing of a criminal case for alleged election overspending against former governor Glenda Buray Ecleo of Dinagat Islands. Under the Comelec’s rules of procedure, the preliminary investigation of a complaint must be terminated within 20 days from receipt of the counter-affidavits and other evidence of the respondents, and the resolution must be issued within five days thereafter. The motu proprio (on its own initiative) complaint by the Comelec’s campaign finance unit (CFU) was filed against Ecleo on Dec. 13, 2014 for alleged election overspending in violation of Section 100, in relation to Section 262, of the Omnibus Election Code. The alleged overspending was reportedly committed by Ecleo during the 2010 gubernatorial election in Dinagat Islands.  She won the election and was re-elected governor in the succeeding 2013 election. The CFU claimed that based on the 70,353 registered voters in 2010, Ecleo should have spent only P211,059 at P3 per voter.  However, CFU said that Ecleo spent P230,000 or P18,941 more than the allowed amount under the law. Ecleo denied the allegations in the complaint and pointed out that it was her secretary who prepared the Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE).  She said her secretary merely surmised the amounts as she (secretary) was not in possession of receipts at the time the SOCE was filed on June 8, 2010. On June 23, 2021, the Comelec as full commission (en banc) adopted the recommendation of its Law Department and ordered the filing of the criminal charge sheet against Ecleo. On July 20, 2022, Ecleo received a copy of the resolution.  She filed a petition with the SC on Aug. 12, 2022 and assailed the Comelec’s resolution. The SC granted Ecleo’s petition in a unanimous full court decision written by Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh.  The SC said: “In stark contrast to its self-prescribed timelines, the Comelec took seven long years to determine probable cause on the part of Ecleo for violation of an election offense. “Much had already transpired in the span of time between the filing of the complaint and the issuance of the assailed Resolution. “Not only did Ecleo complete her term as Governor of Dinagat Islands, she had even been re-elected to the same post and had already completed her second term. Yet, preliminary investigation for an election related charge filed during her first term was still ongoing.” The SC pointed out a four-fold test to determine whether the right to speedy disposition of cases is violated, namely: the length of the delay, the reasons for such delay, defendant's assertion or non-assertion of his or her right, and the prejudice caused to the defendant as a result of the delay. “Applying the four-fold test in Ecleo's scenario will yield the finding that her right to speedy disposition of cases has been violated,” the SC said. It said the Comelec “took an unreasonable amount of time to conduct its preliminary investigation, on an issue that could be resolved by simple arithmetic, without offering a valid explanation for the delay. The uncertainty of this case's outcome caused mental anguish on the part of Ecleo, to her prejudice.” “Thus, the Court grants the Rule 64 Petition for Certiorari filed by Ecleo, and nullifies the assailed Resolution issued by the Comelec directing the Law Department to file an Information against Ecleo for violation of Section 100, in relation to Section 262, of the Omnibus Election Code,” the SC ruled.