The Supreme Court (SC) has nullified a Commission on Elections (Comelec) resolution that ordered the filing of an overspending case before the court against a mayoralty candidate in Loboc, Bohol in the 2010 elections.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC ruled that the unreasonable delay in the investigation of an election offense violated the right of a candidate to the speedy disposition of his case.

With the ruling, the SC nullified the Comelec resolution to charge Petronilo Solomon Sarigumba with violation of the Omnibus Election Code for overspending. Sarigumba lost the 2010 mayoralty race in Loboc town.

A summary of the case issued by the SC’s Office of the Spokesperson stated that a month after the May 2010 elections, Sarigumba filed his Statement of Election Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE), as required by law.

Four years later, the Comelec’s Campaign Finance Unit (CFU) asked him to explain his alleged overspending based on his SOCE.

After Sarigumba’s submission of his explanation, the CFU filed a complaint against him before the Comelec in December 2014.

The case was set for preliminary investigation on April 14, 2015, but Sarigumba sought several postponements due to illness.

On July 11, 2015, the Comelec’s Law Department directed Sarigumba to file his counter-affidavit which he failed to submit.

Six years later in 2021, the Comelec as a full commission adopted the Law Department’s recommendation to charge Sarigumba with election overspending before the regional trial court (RTC).

Sarigumba challenged the Comelec’s resolution before the SC. He told the SC that the Comelec was guilty of undue delay in investigating his case, thereby violating his right to a speedy resolution.

For its part, the Comelec told the SC that although the commission’s Rules of Procedure set a 20-day limit for preliminary investigation, the period starts only upon the respondent's submission of the counter-affidavit.

It also said that Sarigumba had waived his right to the speedy disposition of his case by failing to participate in the proceedings and raising the issue only years later.

In granting Sarigumba’s petition, the SC pointed out that under Article III, Section 16 of the Constitution, all persons are guaranteed the right to the speedy disposition of cases before judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative bodies.

When this right is violated, the SC stressed that it will not hesitate to dismiss the case.

It explained that under the Comelec’s Rules of Procedure, a preliminary investigation should be completed within 20 days after receiving the respondent’s counter-affidavit or after the deadline to file one has passed, and a resolution should be made within five days thereafter.

It noted that more than six years had passed since Sarigumba was required to submit his counter-affidavit, yet the Comelec failed to finish and resolve the preliminary investigation within the time limits set by its own rules.

Sarigumba’s failure to file a counter-affidavit did not excuse the Comelec’s prolonged inaction, the SC said. Any delay after the filing period had lapsed was attributable to the Comelec, it also said.

“It is the duty of the prosecutor to speedily resolve the complaint, as mandated by the Constitution, regardless of whether the petitioner did not object to the delay or that the delay was with his acquiescence provided that it was not due to causes directly attributable to him,” the SC said.