THE OFW Party List on Monday filed a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for Urgent Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) with the Supreme Court, calling COMELEC En Banc to cease and desist from implementing the National Board of Canvassers (NBOC) Resolution 14-25 promulgated last May 18, 2025. The petition highlights what the group describes as a fundamental distortion of the party-list system’s original mandate to represent the marginalized, asserting that the system has been co-opted by entrenched political and economic interests.
The petition requests the issuance of a TRO against the legal effect of NBOC Resolution 14-25, which distributed 63 seats among party-list winners for the incoming 20th Congress. The OFW Party List is also seeking a full review and recomputation of seat allocations.
Speaking at a press conference, OFW Party List Rep. Marissa “Del Mar” Magsino underscored that the petition addresses deeper structural issues. “This is no longer about procedure, it’s about preserving the integrity of a system designed to uplift the marginalized. What we’re witnessing is a systemic shift that undermines the principles behind the party-list mechanism. The voices of our Overseas Filipino Workers and seafarers, the pillars of our economy and vital threads in our social fabric, were unfairly silenced by the inequitable seat allocation,” Magsino said.
Joined by OFWs, seafarers, and their family members, Magsino called for a reexamination of how the party-list system is being implemented. The group brought placards and held an indignation walk, emphasizing the need to return the system to its foundational purpose.
Magsino asserted, “Ibalik ang boses ng mga OFW sa Kongreso. Ang ating party-list representation ay dapat patas at totoo!”.
The petition argues that current implementation practices have created an uneven playing field, allowing politically entrenched entities to secure representation at the expense of genuine sectoral voices. Among the issues raised is the continued use of the BANAT formula, which the group contends favors larger, well-funded parties that surpass the 2% vote threshold, often sidelining smaller groups that more accurately represent marginalized sectors.
The OFW Party List also points to a discrepancy in seat allocation, noting that only 63 seats were awarded instead of the 64 mandated under the Constitution’s provision that 20% of House seats be reserved for party-list representatives. This, they argue, is not merely a numerical oversight, but a constitutional lapse.
According to Magsino: “The Court has a duty to uphold the integrity of our institutions. This petition is not just about a seat. It’s about the promise that this system once held for farmers, laborers, overseas workers, and other underrepresented groups. That promise is now at risk.”
Legal experts note the case, OFW Party List v. COMELEC could potentially be viewed as one of the most significant legal challenges to the party-list system in more than a decade.
COMELEC has yet to release an official comment, citing the need to thoroughly review the petition. Several winning party-list groups also deferred statements pending legal consultation.
First established under the 1987 Constitution, the party-list system was envisioned as a means to ensure that sectors historically excluded from legislative processes had a voice in Congress. But as recent years have shown, observers and advocates now question whether it continues to fulfill that promise.
The OFW Party List hopes that the Supreme Court will act on their prayer for Issuance of TRO and/or Status Quo Ante Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction with extreme urgency.
