In sum it is my humble view that in the case at bar

This preview shows page 36 - 38 out of 71 pages.

of discretion, they should not be interfered with. In sum, it is my humble view that in the case at bar, Congress exceeded the permissible exercise of its oversight powers for the following reasons: (1) it restricts the COMELECs constitutional grant of power to promulgate rules and regulations; and (2) it invades COMELECs exclusive constitutional domain to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct 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 to Sec 1 but an entirely different provision which allows only those qualified under Sec 1 to exercise absentee voting “Qualified Filipinos abroad” must possess all qualifications and that includes residence An “absentee” resides abroad but whose intent to return home and forsake the foreign country is clear It cannot refer to immigrants Deliberations of the Constitutional Commission reveals that absentee voting does not extend to immigrants and permanent residents abroad Immigration and permanent residency is permanent renunciation of domicile of origin. It is not temporary Absentee voting only extended to qualified Filipinos temporarily residing abroad and qualified Filipinos who are temporarily abroad but are not residents therein Sandoval-Gutierrez, J (Dissenting Opinion) · Sec. 5(d) of the RA 9189 is unconstitutional 1. The framers had to maintain consistency among the provision of the Constitution. a. Residency requirement (where residency is synonymous to domicile) still applies to Filipinos abroad. b. The framers deliberated that “qualified Filipinos abroad” includes only those whose presence in the foreign country is only “temporary” and whose domicile is still the Philippines. 2. No person has more than one domicile at a time.
Image of page 36
a. A Filipino immigrant, by permanent residency in the host country, loses Philippines as his domicile. b. A person is considered to have abandoned his domicile if he chooses a new domicile, actually resides in the place chosen, and intents that it be the principal and permanent residence. c. Caasi v. CA: green card holder has abandoned domicile in the Philippines 3. Residence for voting is not only a question of intention, but also of fact. a. Filipino immigrant must reestablish Philippines as domicile (beyond mere affidavit) before being qualified to vote. b. A voter’s statements, declarations or testimony with respect to his intention must be taken in connection with his acts and conduct. Conduct has greater evidential value than a declaration. c. Future act required by RA 9189 (resume actual physical permanent residence in the Philippines within 3 years from approval of registration) cannot change the immigrant’s present domicile. It is doubtful and uncertain, and there is a settled principle that a voter must possess all qualifications on the day of the elections in order to vote.
Image of page 37
Image of page 38

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 71 pages?

  • Fall '19
  • Government, Separation of Powers, Supreme Court of the United States, The Court, Sc

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes