of discretion, they should not be interfered with. ●In sum, it is my humble view that in the case at bar,Congressexceededthepermissibleexerciseofitsoversight powers for the following reasons: (1) it restrictstheCOMELECsconstitutionalgrantofpowertopromulgaterulesandregulations;and(2)itinvadesCOMELECsexclusive constitutional domain to enforceand administer all laws and regulations relative to theconduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum,and recall Ynares-Santiago, J (Concurring and Dissenting Opinion) ●The law allows non-residents to vote ●The provision on absentee voting is not an exception toSec 1 but an entirely different provision which allows onlythose qualified under Sec 1 to exercise absentee voting ○“QualifiedFilipinosabroad”mustpossessallqualifications and that includes residence ●An “absentee” resides abroad but whose intent to returnhome and forsake the foreign country is clear ○It cannot refer to immigrants ●Deliberationsof the Constitutional Commission revealsthat absentee voting does not extend to immigrants andpermanent residents abroad ○Immigrationandpermanentresidencyispermanent renunciation of domicile of origin. It isnot temporary ○AbsenteevotingonlyextendedtoqualifiedFilipinostemporarilyresidingabroadandqualified Filipinos who are temporarily abroad butare not residents therein Sandoval-Gutierrez, J (Dissenting Opinion) ●·Sec. 5(d) of the RA 9189 is unconstitutional1.Theframershadtomaintainconsistencyamongtheprovision of the Constitution. a.Residencyrequirement(whereresidencyissynonymous to domicile) still applies to Filipinosabroad. b.The framers deliberated that “qualified Filipinosabroad” includes only those whose presence inthe foreign country is only “temporary” and whosedomicile is still the Philippines. 2.No person has more than one domicile at a time.
a.A Filipino immigrant, by permanent residency inthehostcountry,losesPhilippinesashisdomicile. b.A person is considered to have abandoned hisdomicile if he chooses a new domicile, actuallyresides in the place chosen, and intents that it bethe principal and permanent residence. c.Caasi v. CA: green card holder has abandoneddomicile in the Philippines 3.Residence for voting is not only a question of intention, butalso of fact. a.Filipino immigrant must reestablish Philippines asdomicile(beyondmereaffidavit) before beingqualified to vote. b.A voter’s statements, declarations or testimonywith respect to his intention must be taken inconnection with his acts and conduct. Conducthas greater evidential value than a declaration. c.Future act required by RA 9189 (resume actualphysical permanent residence in the Philippineswithin3yearsfromapprovalofregistration)cannot change the immigrant’s present domicile.It is doubtful and uncertain, and there is a settledprinciplethatavotermustpossessallqualifications on the day of the elections in orderto vote.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 71 pages?
Government, Separation of Powers, Supreme Court of the United States, The Court, Sc