By PR | 09:46 AM December 19, 2025
The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the Commission on Elections’ (Comelec) unreasonable delay in investigating an election offense violated a mayoral candidate’s right to the speedy disposition of his case.
In a Decision written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC En Banc nullified the Comele ’s resolution finding probable cause to charge Petronilo Solomon Sarigumba (Sarigumba) for violating the Omnibus Election Code.
Sarigumba lost the mayoral race in Loboc, Bohol, in the May 2010 elections. A month later, he filed his Statement of Election Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE), as required by law.
Four years later, the Comelec Campaign Finance Unit (CFU) asked him to explain his alleged overspending based on his SOCE. After he submitted 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. The Comelec’s Law Department later directed him to file his counter-affidavit on July 11, 2015, which he failed to submit.
Six years later, the Comelec En Banc adopted the Law Department’s recommendation in a Resolution, finding probable cause to charge Sarigumba with election overspending before the Regional Trial Court.
Sarigumba challenged this before the SC, arguing that the Comelec was guilty of undue delay in investigating his case, thereby violating his right to a speedy resolution.
The Comelec argued that although its Rules of Procedure set a 20-day limit for the preliminary investigation, the period begins only upon the respondent’s submission of the counter-affidavit. It further claimed 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.
The SC disagreed.
Citing Article III, Section 16 of the Constitution, the SC stressed that 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 will not hesitate to dismiss the case.
The SC explained that under the Comelec 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 following that.
The SC 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. Any delay after the filing period had lapsed was attributable to the Comelec.
The SC observed that the Comelec offered no justification for the delay. The case did not involve complex issues, as the finding of probable cause was based solely on Sarigumba’s SOCE.
The SC also ruled that Sarigumba could not be faulted for invoking his right to the speedy disposition of his case only after receiving the Comelec Resolution years later. A respondent in a criminal prosecution or investigation is not duty-bound to follow up on their case. Rather –
“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 thus dismissed the case against Sarigumba. (Courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)
