Constitutional Law: Article III, Section 16 Summary (De Leon)

 Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court, all lower collegiate courts, and all other lower courts are required to decide or resolve cases within a certain period of time. (see Art. VIII, Sec. 15[1].) 

Supreme Court - 24 months, unless reduced

Lower Collegiate Courts - 12 months

Lower Courts - 3 months

The Commission on Elections shall expedite disposition of election cases

including pre-proclamation controversies. (Art. IX-C, Sec. 3.) 

With the setting of an absolute time limit in the disposition of cases, a court litigant will not have to wait indefinitely anymore for his case to be decided.

Importance of right. (SJ-EC-CF-RL)

(1) Section 16 upholds the time-honored tradition of speedy justice for as stated in the old dictum - "Justice delayed is justice denied." Its express inclusion was in response to the common charge against the perennial delays in the administration of justice which in the past have plagued our judicial system. 

The right finds greater significance in criminal prosecutions where not only the fortune, but the life and liberty, are at stake, and where any reasonable delay in the disposition of the case may result in a denial of justice for the accused altogether.

(2) A long delay in the disposition of cases often results in the loss of evidence, abandonment of cases, and frequent defeat of justice. It lowers the standard of the courts and brings them into disrepute.

The unjustified delay in a criminal case cuts both ways - on the part of the accused, since his liberty is at stake, his suffering is unduly prolonged on account of the judge's failure to promptly render the judgment of acquittal, and, on the part of the offended party, the pain of waiting for the sentencing of the accused gives the former the impression of impropriety that could diminish his trust in the judicial system

(3) Not only does it increase the cost of seeking justice, it likewise undermines the people's faith and confidence in the judiciary. Worse, it invites suspicion of ulterior motives on the part of the judge. It may create mistrust of the government itself and this

may pave the way to one's taking the law in his own hands to the

great detriment of society.

(4) On the other hand, the observance of "the right to a speedy disposition of their cases" enhances the people's respect for the law and faith in their government. Any party to a case has the right to demand its expeditions disposition by all officials who are tasked

with the administration of justice.

Scope of the right.

(1) Covers all phases of any case.

Section 16 recognizes the broader right to speedy judgment after trial or hearing distinctly

from the right to speedy trial available to an accused in criminal cases guaranteed in Section 14(2). 

Trial - a judicial examination and determination of issues between parties to an action. 

Hearing - frequently used in a broader and more popular significance to describe whatever takes place before magistrates clothed with judicial functions, at any stage of the proceedings subsequent to its inception.

It covers all phases of any case, be it criminal, civil, or administrative in nature, before judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative bodies from its filing to its disposition.2 (see Art. VIII, Sec. 15.)

Judicial - courts

Quasi-judicial - executive agencies performing' adjudicatory functions similar to those of court.

                Ex: Constitutional Commissions, National Labor Relations Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission

Administrative bodies - executive agencies performing limited adjudicatory functions.

                Ex: Bureaus under the different departments

The inordinate delay in the conduct of preliminary investigation will infringe upon the constitutionally guaranteed right of an accused to a speedy disposition of his case. And where a court does not act promptly on the adjudication of a case before it and within the period prescribed by law, the accused's right to a speed disposition of the case is just as much prejudicial as when the prosecution is prolonged or deferred indefinitely.

(2) Extends to all parties and covers the periods before judgment.

This constitutionally guaranteed right extends its protection to all citizens, including those in the military and covers the periods before, during, and after the trial, affording broader or expanded protection than Section 14(2) which guarantees merely the right to a speedy trial in criminal cases, the violation of which entitles the accused to an acquittal.

(3) Obtains in any proceeding regardless of the nature of the case.

It is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases including civil and administrative cases, and in all proceedings including judicial and quasi-judicial hearings. 

Hence, under the Constitution, any party to a case may demand expeditious action from all officials who are tasked with the administration of justice.

(4) Right necessarily relative and flexible.

The right to a speedy disposition of cases, or prompt rendition of judgment, however, like the right to speedy trial accorded to the accused in all criminal proceedings, is necessarily relative or flexible.

While the speedy disposition of cases may be the policy of the Constitution, speed alone is not the chief objective of a trial or hearing. More than speed and efficacy or the mere convenience of the courts or agencies and of the parties m the case, the disposition of cases should always be predicated on the consideration that the ends of justice and fairness

would be served thereby.

A mere mathematical reckoning of the time, involved, therefore, would not be sufficient.

Thus, it has been held that the bare allegation that it took the Ombudsman more than three (3) years to terminate the preliminary investigation and file the necessary information would not suffice.

(5) Right dependent upon circumstances of each case.

The right is also consistent with reasonable delays and usually depends on the circumstances of each case. 

What the Constitution prohibits are unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive delays which render rights nugatory. The same factors laid down in determining whether or not

the right to a speedy trial has been violated may also be considered and balanced against each other in answering judicial inquiry whether or not a person officially charged with the administration of justice has violated the right to a speedy disposition of a case.

It is not enough that there be some procrastination in the proceedings. The conduct of both the prosecution/plaintiff and the accused/defendant must be weighed. It has been held that in order to justify the dismissal of a criminal case, it must be established that the proceedings have been unquestionably been marred by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays. But even though the failure or inaction may not have been deliberately intended by the court, the unjustified delay may have nonetheless caused just as much vexation and oppression, in violation of the right of a person to a speedy disposition of his case.

(6) Factors that may be considered. (L-R-A-P) 

A balancing test of applying societal interest and the rights of the accused necessarily compels the court to approach speedy trial cases on an ad hoc basis.

The doctrinal rule is that in the determination of whether the right has been violated, the factors that may be considered and balanced are as follows:

(a) the length of the delay; 

(b) the reasons for the delay; 

(c) the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and 

(d) the prejudice caused by the delay.

Indeed, what is beneficial speed or delay for one side could be harmful speed or delay on the other, and vice versa. The right should not work against and preclude the people's equally important right to public justice.

 

(7) Subject to waiver. 

The right may be waived by failure to assert it seasonably despite the finding that there was condemnable delay especially where the delay is not attributable to any of the parties involved.