G.R. No. 132774 - Aguinaldo vs. Commission on Elections

1. Parties Involved:

Petitioners: Rodolfo E. Aguinaldo (Governor of Cagayan), Florencio L. Vargas (Vice Governor), Romeo I. Calubaquib, Amado T. Gonzales, Silverio C. Salvanera (Members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan), Alberta O. Quinto (Mayor of Peñablanca), and Aurora V. Estabillo (Mayor of Sta. Praxedes).
Respondent: Commission on Elections (COMELEC).

2. Legal Context:

Petitioners sought to prevent the COMELEC from enforcing Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881) during the 1998 elections. Section 67 states that any elective official running for a position other than the one they currently hold (except for President and Vice-President) shall be considered ipso facto resigned upon filing their certificate of candidacy.
Petitioners also challenged the modification of Section 67 by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8436, which states that such officials shall be deemed resigned only upon the start of the campaign period.

3. Petitioners' Arguments:

Petitioners argued that Section 67 violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, as it creates an unreasonable classification between:
- Incumbent officials running for the same position (not considered resigned).
- Incumbent officials running for a different position (considered resigned).
They contended that this classification gives undue advantage to reelectionists and creates absurd situations, such as:
- A mayor running for President remains in office despite being physically absent.
- A councilor running for mayor is considered resigned even if physically present.
Petitioners also argued that Section 67 effectively shortens the terms of elected officials, violating Article X, Section 8 of the Constitution, which guarantees a three-year term for local officials.

4. COMELEC's Position:

The COMELEC defended Section 67 as reasonable and based on substantial distinctions. It argued that incumbents running for the same position should continue serving to avoid disruption in public service, while those running for different positions are deemed to have abandoned their current post.

5. Solicitor General's Input:

The Solicitor General cited the case of Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr., where the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 67, stating that it ensures public officials serve their full term and discourages them from abandoning their mandate.

Constitutionality of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code:
- Does Section 67 violate the equal protection clause by creating an unreasonable classification between incumbent officials running for the same position and those running for a different position?
Effect on Term of Office:
- Does Section 67 effectively shorten the term of office of elected officials, in violation of Article X, Section 8 of the Constitution?
Propriety of the Remedy:
- Is the petition for prohibition appropriate, given that the 1998 elections had already been held?

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It upheld the validity of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, ruling that:

Equal Protection Clause:
- The classification under Section 67 is reasonable and based on substantial distinctions. It ensures that incumbents running for the same position can continue serving their constituents, while those running for different positions are deemed to have abandoned their current post.
Term of Office:
- Section 67 does not shorten the term of office but ensures that public officials serve their full term. The act of filing a certificate of candidacy for another position constitutes a voluntary renunciation of the current office, which is allowed under the Constitution.
Propriety of the Remedy:
- The petition for prohibition is inappropriate because the act sought to be enjoined (the 1998 elections) had already been completed. Prohibition does not lie to restrain an act that is already a fait accompli.