What is a reasonable length of time for court cases to be resolved in Philippine court?
We ask this question in light of the dismissal by the Court of Appeals (CA) of a civil forfeiture case filed by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) against three individuals allegedly involved in the multi-billion peso pork barrel scandal.
In a 17-page ruling last month, the CA’s Ninth Division granted the petition for certiorari by the three accused who sought to overturn the Manila Regional Trial Court’s 2022 decision to quash their motion to dismiss the case.
In their appeal to the CA, the petitioners argued that their constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated because it took eight years and five months between the submission of the last pleading and the conduct of the pre-trial.
In granting the petition, the appellate court emphasized that the right to speedy disposition of cases is guaranteed by Section 16, Article III of the Constitution. “This constitutional right is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases, be it civil or administrative in nature, as well as in all proceedings, either judicial or quasi-judicial,” said the decision, penned by Associate Justice Eleuterio Bathan.
The CA decision is based on Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.”
Elsewhere in the fundamental law, there’s also the provision that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”
The right to a speedy trial was also invoked by another respondent in the same pork barrel scandal. The respondent, the former chief of staff of a veteran lawmaker, succeeded in getting herself freed from six years or so years in detention awaiting the court’s verdict on the case.
The right to a speedy trial ensures that an accused is tried promptly, without undue delay, balancing both public interest in the efficient administration of justice with the protection of the accused from the undue burden of prolonged litigation. It also prevents arbitrary and oppressive delays and avoids oppressive incarceration before trial.
It is a right that is part of due process, but also a right that can be invoked to free from detention even those who deserve to be punished for heinous crimes. But that’s from a layman’s point of view.
