The Supreme Court has ruled that the Commission on Elections (Comelec)'s delays in investigating election cases violate the constitutional right to speedy disposition. It nullified Comelec's resolution finding probable cause against Petronilo Solomon Sarigumba for violating the Omnibus Election Code. The decision emphasized the state's responsibility to ensure prompt resolution of cases.
In a 22-page decision dated August 19, 2025, the Supreme Court En Banc rejected Comelec's argument that Sarigumba waived his right to speedy disposition through inaction. Sarigumba lost the mayoral race in Loboc, Bohol, during the 2010 elections. A month after the polls, he filed his Statement of Election Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE).
In 2014, Comelec’s Campaign Finance Unit asked Sarigumba to explain alleged overspending in his SOCE. After he submitted his explanation, the unit filed a complaint against him. Citing illness, he secured postponements for the April 14, 2015, investigation but failed to submit a counter-affidavit by the July 11, 2015, deadline.
Six years after that deadline, Comelec en banc issued a resolution to charge Sarigumba, claiming he had waived his rights by not objecting to the delay. The Supreme Court dismissed this, citing Article III, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution, which states: “Article III, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution guarantees the right of all persons to speedy disposition of cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.”
The court also noted that under Comelec Rules of Procedure, a preliminary investigation must be completed within 20 days after the counter-affidavit, with a resolution in the next five days. “The Court ruled that the Comelec cannot justify the conduct of preliminary investigation for more than six years, as the case did not involve a complex issue or require voluminous records or evidence,” the decision read. It stressed that ensuring prompt resolution is the state's duty, not the respondent's. “It is the duty of the prosecutor to speedily resolve the complaint... regardless of whether the petitioner did not object to the delay,” it added.
