This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-01-28 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Equally important, the constitutional guarantee of "speedy disposition of cases" before, among others, quasi-judicial bodies,[75] like the Office of the Ombudsman, is itself a relative concept.[76] Thus, the delay, if any, must be measured in this objective constitutional sense. Unfortunately, because of the very statutory grounds relied upon by the OP in dismissing Gonzales, the political and, perhaps, "practical" considerations got the better of what is legal and constitutional. | |||||
|
2013-02-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Section 16, Article III of the Constitution declares in no uncertain terms that "[A]ll persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies." The right to a speedy disposition of a case is deemed violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays, or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.[37] The constitutional guarantee to a speedy disposition of cases is a relative or flexible concept.[38] It is consistent with delays and depends upon the circumstances. What the Constitution prohibits are unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive delays which render rights nugatory.[39] | |||||