NTF-ELCAC asks SC to void COMELEC’s “64th seat,” says move breaches Constitution’s 20% party-list cap

September 17, 2025

The Republic of the Philippines, through the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), has asked the Supreme Court to void the Commission on Elections’ proclamation of GABRIELA Women’s Party as the 64th party-list representative in the 20th Congress, calling the move a “clear constitutional breach” of the 20 percent ceiling for party-list seats.

Filed as a petition for certiorari and prohibition with a very urgent prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO), writ of preliminary injunction, and/or status quo ante order, the pleading anchors its case on Article VI, Section 5(2) of the 1987 Constitution and Section 11 of the Party-List System Act. With 254 legislative districts, the maximum lawful party-list allocation is 63 seats—“not 64,” the petition stresses.

The government’s lawyers lean heavily on the High Court’s own guideposts. In Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC and BANAT v. COMELEC, the Court held that the 20% figure is a ceiling, not a target to be overrun. The petition argues that COMELEC “cannot by proclamation expand the Constitution,” warning that any addition beyond the cap “dilutes lawful representation and injures the sovereign will.”

“The mathematics is not up for creative interpretation,” said NTF-ELCAC Executive Director Undersecretary Ernesto C. Torres Jr., who verified the petition. “At 254 districts, the lawful ceiling computes to 63 party-list seats. A 64th seat crosses the constitutional line and distorts the people’s mandate.”

Assistant Solicitor General Justice Angelita Villanueva Miranda, chair of the NTF-ELCAC Legal Cooperation Cluster, was equally direct: “The Supreme Court has repeatedly said the 20% is a hard ceiling. Veterans and BANAT bind every actor in the electoral process. COMELEC cannot cure an overage with convenience.”

Beyond the numbers, the petition faults COMELEC for moving to proclaim GABRIELA despite a long-pending 2019 cancellation case that, according to NTF-ELCAC, squarely questions the group’s continuing qualification under the Party-List System Act. Petitioner says this “special treatment” violates equal protection, noting that other party-lists faced withholding or disqualification while cases were resolved.

On equal protection, the filing cites the Supreme Court’s doctrine that classifications must rest on substantial distinctions and apply equally to all similarly situated. Petitioner argues there is “no principled basis” for allowing the proclamation of a group with an unresolved cancellation case while subjecting other party-lists to stricter, case-first processing.

The government also asks the High Court to exercise its expanded judicial review under Article VIII, Section 1, pointing to an “actual, urgent controversy” arising from COMELEC’s own public confirmation that a certificate of proclamation had been signed and routed. Left unchecked, the petition warns, the disputed seat could be filled before the Court rules, risking the mooting of the cancellation case.

Direct resort to the Supreme Court, it adds, fits recognized exceptions to the hierarchy of courts: the case raises constitutional questions, is of transcendental importance, emanates from a constitutional body, and demands immediate resolution because time is of the essence.

As provisional relief, the Republic asks for a TRO or preliminary injunction to preserve the constitutional baseline while the merits are heard. The petition invokes the familiar requisites for injunctive relief—clear right, violation, and urgent necessity—to prevent serious and irreparable institutional harm.

Should proclamation have already occurred before the Court can act, petitioner prays for a status quo ante order—to restore “the last, actual, peaceable, and uncontested state of things,” which it defines as the House composition with only 63 party-list seats and none awarded to GABRIELA.

Substantively, the petition distills its thrust to two points. First, the computation: with 254 district seats, the Constitution and BANAT’s allocation framework cap party-list seats at 63. Second, equal protection: rules applied to other party-lists with pending cases must be applied “even-handedly” to GABRIELA; arbitrary carve-outs erode public trust.

“This is not about ideology; it is about the Constitution,” Usec. Torres said. “Every seat added beyond the 20% limit is one seat too many—unlawful, corrosive of institutional integrity, and ultimately a disservice to voters.”

Justice Miranda framed the appeal as a fidelity test: “We seek nothing more—and nothing less—than obedience to the Constitution and to controlling jurisprudence. The 20% ceiling is a command, not a suggestion.”

In its prayer, the Republic asks the Supreme Court to: (1) immediately enjoin COMELEC from proclaiming a 64th party-list seat, or if already proclaimed, issue a status quo ante order restoring the pre-dispute state; (2) give due course to the petition; and (3) after hearing, make the injunction permanent or nullify any proclamation that exceeds the 20% cap and violates equal protection.

The petition also underscores a rule-of-law point: that electoral rules must be known in advance, applied consistently, and kept within constitutional bounds. “The party-list system exists to broaden representation,” the filing concludes, “but never to break the ceiling the Constitution itself set.”