1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In overseas voting, Philippine embassies, consulates, and foreign service establishments are designated as polling precincts.[102] Filipinos abroad would need to allot hours of travel to get to them without the benefit of an election holiday. A longer duration of a 30-day voting period abroad is, therefore, understandable. The longer voting period is enacted to encourage Filipinos overseas to participate in the elections. Considering the Philippines' experience during the election period, the two-day prohibition on partisan political activities here bears a crucial role in subduing the dire consequences and abuses that attend it. The tail end of the election campaign period is the peak of candidates' and political parties' efforts to secure a win, and prolonged political campaigns frequently result in "violence and even death . . . because of the heat engendered by such political activities."[103] Overseas, the sweeping prohibition on the partisan political activities during the 30-day voting period has no added value in "safeguarding the conduct of an honest, peaceful, and orderly elections" abroad.[104] There is no discernable reason behind the blanket prohibition. Through the lens of strict scrutiny, the assailed law and resolution fail because there are no dangers and evils present abroad that are "substantive, 'extremely serious[,] and the degree of imminence extremely high.'"[105] Being forms of prior restraint and content-based regulation, the assailed provisions bear the heavy presumption of unconstitutionality. The government then, has to prove that the regulations are valid. Here, respondent failed in discharging its burden of proof. In maintaining their constitutionality, respondent insists that the assailed provisions are content-neutral.[106] As such, respondent contends that they are permissible for satisfying the intermediate test laid down by jurisprudence, i.e., provided by law, reasonable, narrowly tailored to meet their objective, and the least restrictive means to achieve that objective.[107] Respondent heavily capitalizes on this Court's ruling in In Re: Gonzales[108] to justify the assailed law. Quoting In Re: Gonzales, respondent postulates that while freedom of expression is at the core of a partisan political activity, Congress has the power to regulate and limit this freedom "for the sake of general welfare and, ironically enough, safeguarding the right of suffrage."[109] It quotes a relevant portion of the Decision: This is not to deny that Congress was indeed called upon to seek remedial measures for the far-from-satisfactory condition arising from the too-early nomination of candidates and the necessarily prolonged political campaigns. The direful consequences and the harmful effects on the public interest with the vital affairs of the country sacrificed many a time to purely partisan pursuits were known to all. Moreover, it is no exaggeration to state that violence and even death did frequently occur because of the heat engendered by such political activities. Then, too, the opportunity for dishonesty and corruption, with the right to suffrage being bartered, was further magnified. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65669 39/60