High Court revises ‘inordinate delay’ doctrine in graft cases

The period for the resolution of graft cases starts with the preliminary investigation phase in the Office of the Ombudsman.

The Supreme Court (SC) yesterday set this guideline for judicial determination when a case is considered to be suffering from inordinate delay, which is common ground for seeking dismissal of cases before the Sandiganbayan.

Voting 8-2 in session, the justices upheld the position of the ombudsman that the reckoning period for the right to a speedy trial does not start with the fact-finding investigation.

“The court interpreted the reckoning period for the right to ‘speedy disposition of cases’ under Article II , Section 16 to start from the preliminary investigation of cases, and not before the preliminary investigation ends, not from the fact-finding stage,” SC spokesman Theodore Te said in a press briefing.

The SC made the ruling through a petition filed by former Sarangani provincial treasurer Cesar Cagang, who submitted for the court’s resolution the same issue raised in the petition filed by the ombudsman in 2016 that sought to revisit the inordinate delay doctrine.

The High Court has not immediately released a copy of the decision pending completion of signatures of the justices.

An insider revealed that the ruling effectively revised the doctrine set by the SC in its 2014 decision that junked the $2-million extortion case against former justice secretary Hernani Perez filed by former Manila congressman Mark Jimenez in 2001 due to inordinate delay by the ombudsman.