Inordinate delay
The concept of inordinate delay as a ground for dismissal has been invoked so many times in the past. A study conducted by the GMA News Research showed that from 2013 to 2017, a total of 565 cases were dismissed by the Sandiganbayan because the Ombudsman took too long to investigate and prosecute them.
The number constituted 37 percent of the cases in which the accused sought the dismissal of their cases, mostly related to graft, on the ground of inordinate delay, according to the television network’s research. Two hundred eighty-six accused were cleared as a result.
The total amount involved in the dismissed cases were in the billions of pesos, including the P726 million fertilizer scam during the term of former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and the tax credit scam where the government was supposed to have lost a staggering P5.3 billion to corruption.
Some of the public officials whose cases were dismissed for inordinate delay were from Cebu including former congressmen Antonio Cuenco and Antonio Yapha Jr. in the alleged misuse of funds intended to purchase fertilizer, according to GMA, and former Government Service Insurance System manager Winston Garcia in a case involving the procurement of GSIS electronic membership card in 1994. In Garcia’s case, the Sandiganbayan also declared that there was no probable cause to hold him liable as the allegations of graft were more speculative than real.
Even President Duterte in a way benefited from the doctrine of inordinate delay in a case involving the purchase of computer hardware when he was mayor of Davao City in 1990. In Duterte and De Guzman versus Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court’s third division headed by then chief justice Andres Narvasa, not only lambasted the Office of the Ombudsman for denying Duterte’s right to a preliminary investigation and its inordinate delay in investigating his case but also categorically declared that “there is no basis, in fact and in law” to criminally charge him and the other accused for graft.
The length of delay that is considered inordinate is not well defined. In the period covered by the GMA research, the length was more than 10 years in 318 of the dismissed cases, 5 years to less than 10 years in 189, and 3 years to less than 5 years in 49. The duration in the rest of the cases was unspecified.
In March last year, then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, apparently stung by the series of setbacks dealt her office by the Sandiganbayan, asked the Supreme Court to set the guidelines on the application of inordinate delay to graft cases. “While it is well-established in jurisprudence that criminal cases may be dismissed on the ground of denial of the accused’s right to speedy trial, the concept of ‘inordinate delay’ that amounts to a violation of said right has eluded exact definition,” the Ombudsman moaned.
In August, this year, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that revised the concept of inordinate delay. In Cagang versus Sandiganbayan, the court said that the period of inordinate delay should be reckoned from the preliminary investigation, not from the fact-finding stage. Still there was no definition of how long is considered inordinate.
The recent resolution of the Sandiganbayan denying the motion to dismiss the Balili case of Cebu 3rd Dist. Rep. Gwendolyn Garcia does not offer any insight either on what is considered inordinate delay in terms of years and months. From the various reports on the Sandiganbayan order, what the Court said was that if there was delay, the accused contributed to it because of the several motions that she filed. In other words, her right to a speedy trial cannot be said to have been impaired because she herself had impeded its execution.
My guess is that Garcia will file a motion for reconsideration with the Sandiganbayan and, if it is denied, appeal to the Supreme Court on a petition for review. If the Supreme Court would finally define the length of inordinate delay in Garcia, then the Balili land purchase shall have at least achieved one purpose: enriching jurisprudence.