The Rule of Law - on Laches

Hole of Justice

By Peter G. Jimenea

RULE OF LAW – ON LACHES

Laches is not concerned merely with lapse of time unlike prescription. The latter deals with the facts of delay, laches deals with the effect of unreasonable delay, or failure/neglect for an unreasonable, unexplained length of time to do that by which, exercising due diligence could have been done earlier. (267 SCRA 339).

The failed P137M Housing Project of the Iloilo City government in Pavia, Iloilo, is a story that won’t go away. The construction of 413 units of low-cost houses for City Hall employees that started in 2001 has ended in 2009 without even a unit completed. Let this be a case study.

A case was file against the responsible city officials but it seems not good for the Office of the Ombudsman. It slept their as graft-investigators has failed to find a probable cause against the accused who messed-up with the taxpayers’ money. What a weak defense to save face!

Probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that most likely than not a crime has been committed. It demands more than suspicion and requires less than evidence to justify indictment. The unauthorized payment of P43M by the mayor to the contractor is already embraced in RA 3019.

But the decision approved and signed by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales slams the Information accusing Mayor Jerry Trenas, Melchor Tan, Edwin Bravo, Catherine Tingson and Alex Trinidad for Violation of Sec. 3, Par (e) of RA 3019 as amended and ruled…it is HEREBY SET ASIDE.” Set aside only, nothing follows?

SEC. 16, ART. Iii of the 1987 Constitution reads: “All person shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial or administrative bodies. Also SEC. 16, ART. IV of the 1973 Constitution likewise guarantees the right of all persons to a speedy disposition of their cases.

Finding probable cause is not the reason or justification of the Ombudsman for delay. Different weights cannot be assigned to different reasons or justifications invoked by the State, such as failure of the accused to follow up their pending cases with the office of the Ombudsman.

As respondent, it is not the duty of the accused to follow up the prosecution of the case. Conversely, it was the responsibility of the Office of the Ombudsman to expedite the same with reasonable timeliness in view of its mandate to promptly act on all complaints lodged before it.

A defendant has no duty to bring himself to trial; the State has that duty, as well as the duty of insuring that the trial is consistent with due process. A deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper or prejudice the defense should be weighted heavily against the State!

Jurisprudence dictates, “”A delay in the disposition of cases amounts to a denial of justice, brings the Court to disrepute and ultimately erodes public faith and confidence in the judiciary. (280 SCRA 637)

The SC finds the inordinate delay of more than six (6) years by the Ombudsman in resolving the criminal complaints against the petitioner to be violative of his Constitutionally guaranteed right to due process and to a speedy disposition of cases against him. (Anchangco vs. Ombudsman, 268 SCRA 301)

Lex reprobate moram – the law disapproves of delay. Thus, for the unjust delay of the Ombudsman, the Sandiganbayan approved to dismiss the graft case filed against Petitioner Rafael Coscolluela. The Ombudsman has failed in probing his case for 5 years. (G.R. No. 191411, July 15, 2013).

Delay is a two-edge sword. It is the government that must bear the burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. What if the witnesses in the case have gone away without informing the litigants of the decision? Time passed makes it impossible for the government to carry its burden.

The Constitution and the Rules do not require impossibilities or extraordinary efforts, diligence or exertion from the courts or prosecutors, nor contemplate that such right shall deprive the State of the reasonable opportunity to fairly prosecute criminals.

As vanguard against corruption and bureaucracy, the Office of the Ombudsman must have a system of officials’ accountability to ensure that cases before it are resolved with reasonable dispatch to equally expose those who are responsible for its delays, as it ought to determine in this case.

Never had here been officials so derelict and irresolute in the performance of duty than the Ombudsman and Deputies. The case against (Mayor) now Cong. Jerry Trenas el al is already over 10 years and should have been dismissed by now. But why set aside only? Why not dismiss the case? Is the Office of the Ombudsman another syndicate we have to deal with? Just asking.