Practice question
COMELEC leaves a straightforward election-overspending investigation unresolved for more than six years after the counter-affidavit filing period lapses. The records are limited to a simple expenditure statement, the agency gives no adequate justification, and respondent-caused postponements account for only a minor period. The respondent invokes speedy disposition upon receiving the adverse resolution. Under Sarigumba's main ruling, which defense by the agency is insufficient?
- Explaining the precise periods and reasons for justified delay.
- Showing that a genuinely complex issue required necessary additional work.
- Identifying delay actually attributable to the respondent.
- Demonstrating the governing procedural requirements.
- Claiming that the respondent's failure to follow up regularly necessarily absolves the agency of its constitutional duty.
Legal references
- Sarigumba v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 263615, August 19, 2025, main decision: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/70155
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.