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

Petitioners, all incumbent provincial or municipal officials from Cagayan, filed a petition for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court.
The petition sought the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or a temporary restraining order to prevent the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) from enforcing Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code during the 1998 elections.

Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code states that any elective official running for an office other than the one currently held – except for President and Vice-President – is considered ipso facto resigned upon filing his certificate of candidacy.
An apparent modification under paragraph 3 of Section 11 of R.A. No. 8436 provided that an elective official is deemed resigned only upon the start of the campaign period for the post he/she is seeking.

Petitioners claimed that Section 67 is violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
They argued that the classification inherent in Section 67 lacks a valid basis because it does not adhere to the guidelines set forth in People v. Cayat, which require a valid classification to:

Incumbents running for the same position versus those running for a different position, with the former retaining their office and its advantages, such as resources and influence, thus creating an uneven playing field.
Incumbents running for President or Vice-President are given the privilege of remaining in office, unlike other incumbents running for different offices.

Petitioners also contended that Section 67 effectively shortens the term of office of elected officials, thereby contravening Article X, Section 8 of the Constitution.
They expressed concerns that the provision was enacted without sufficient study, noting that it emerged during the Marcos years when political dynamics were different, such as the possibility of indefinite reelection in the Batasang Pambansa.

COMELEC defended Section 67 by asserting that the classification is reasonable and based on substantial distinctions:

Incumbents running for the same office are allowed to continue in office to avoid disruption in public service.
Running for a different office clearly indicates an abandonment of current responsibilities.

The Solicitor General pointed to the related case of Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr. as precedent which upheld the constitutionality of Section 67.
In Dimaporo, the Supreme Court recognized that filing a certificate of candidacy for another office constitutes an overt act of voluntary renunciation of the incumbent’s present post.

The petition for prohibition is essentially a preventive remedy.
Given that the 1998 elections had already taken place, the petition was viewed as attempting to restrain an act that had already been executed (fait accompli).

Whether the classification in Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, which differentiates between incumbents running for the same office and those running for different offices, is constitutionally valid under the equal protection clause.

Whether Section 67 effectively shortens the term of office of elected officials in violation of Article X, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Whether a petition for prohibition is a proper remedy when the contested act – the enforcement of Section 67 during the 1998 elections – is already a completed act.