[5] In 1982, the Immigration Ordinance was amended to state in Article 2(4)(a) that people who had landed unlawfully, had breached their limit of stay, or were refugees, would not be treated as "ordinarily resident".

Another hundred people watched the proceedings on a large-screen television in the lobby, while protestors both supporting and opposing Vallejos' case faced off outside the building without incident.

[10] The next morning, the weather had returned to normal, and Lam announced his ruling that the relevant provision of the Immigration Ordinance was inconsistent with the Basic Law.

He also stated that the Immigration Department would suspend right of abode applications by FDHs, and that such action did not amount to contempt of court as commentators had suggested.

Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman Raul Hernandez was more circumspect, stating in general terms that the government welcomed developments which improved the situation of overseas Filipino workers, but that he would refrain from further comment as other similar cases were still pending.

[21] However, he stated that it would be entirely permissible for the Immigration Department to delay processing of such applications until after appeals, and that such action would not constitute contempt of court as the government had feared.

The government's submission stated that Lam erred in finding that foreign domestic helpers' residence in Hong Kong could not be regarded as "out of the ordinary", in finding that the government's right to apply immigration control under Basic Law Article 154 could not be applied to Vallejos, and in failing to consider extrinsic materials from both prior to and subsequent to the publication of the Basic Law in 1990.

[35] She also argued that the standard FDH contract's requirement that an FDH return to his or her country of origin every two years did not affect Vallejos' ordinary residence in Hong Kong, because she was offered a renewal of contract prior to departure each time, and her departure from Hong Kong was little different than any other category of employee required by his or her employer to take a compulsory leave.

[38] Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma rejected a further application for joinder by eight-year-old Liang Wing-ki, the Hong Kong-born daughter of mainland parents, whose next friend, mother Li Yinxian, filed suit on her behalf.

Philip Dykes, for the applicant, argued that because Vallejos and Domingo's case would touch on issues of interpretation of the Basic Law under Article 158, Liang's interests would also be affected.

Pannick discussed the legislature's power to define terms used in the Basic Law; he stated that foreign domestic helpers "don't form part of the permanent population" and thus it was legitimate for lawmakers to create a legislative definition of "ordinarily resident" which excluded them.

[42] On 25 March 2013, the CFA issued its judgment that the restrictions on FDH's residence and employment in Hong Kong meant that they did not fall within the definition of "ordinarily resident" for immigration purposes; the judgment did not refer to the 1999 NPCSC interpretation, and thus with no Article 158 issues at hand, the CFA rejected the Government's request for the matter to be referred to the NPCSC for further interpretation.

[43] The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) spoke out in opposition to the possibility of permanent residence for FDHs, citing its potential high costs.

[1] Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions legislator Pan Pey-chyou also expressed concern that increasing the labour supply by giving FDHs the freedom to pursue other employment could put other workers at a disadvantage.

[44] Lee's fellow DAB legislator Chan Kam-lam stated that the party had collected 91,500 signatures in 18 electoral districts, of whom all but 210 were in opposition to granting FDHs the right of abode.

[46] Civic Party chairman Alan Leong questioned the assumption that maids could qualify for permanent residence even if Vallejos won her case, noting that the Immigration Department required applicants for permanent residence to sign a declaration that, among other things, they had "sufficient means of income to support myself and my family in Hong Kong without assistance"; he suggested that the Immigration Department would be unwilling to accept such declarations from FDHs with a typical monthly income of little more than HK$3,000.

An unnamed Immigration Department employee interviewed by Sing Tao Daily, in response to Leong's comments, noted that low income was not necessarily a barrier to becoming a permanent resident, and that applications from other low-income persons such as foreign students were commonly approved.

[48] Regina Ip stated that the government would have to allocate more resources to deal with the increased workload resulting from right of abode applications by FDHs.

[49] A total of roughly 900 foreign domestic helpers made applications for permanent residence from October 2011 to late March 2012 when the Court of Appeal overturned Lam's ruling.

[48] An editorial in Wen Wei Po the week after the ruling accused the Civic Party of being "an enemy of the people" for their alleged support of the maids' residence case.

[51] Public perceptions that pan-democratic candidates supported Vallejos' case are believed to have contributed to their poor showing in the November 2011 district councils elections.

Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions chairman and NPC delegate Cheng Yiu Tong stated that there was a high likelihood the government would seek an interpretation if they lost the case.

[47] Civic Party member Ronny Tong, in contrast, spoke out against calls to seek an interpretation, stating that it could result in "serious erosion to basic human rights".

[54] NPC delegate and former Legislative Council president Rita Fan stated that whether the government sought an interpretation before or after the case, it would be criticised either way for inviting "interference in Hong Kong affairs"; she also opined that an interpretation of the Basic Law would be a more appropriate method of dealing with the case, as opposed to Basic Law Committee deputy head Elsie Leung's suggestion of an amendment.

[57] Basic Law Committee member Lau Nai-keung also wrote an editorial in the China Daily stating that the government should have made an application for interpretation prior to the ruling, and should definitely make one before the case goes to the Court of Final Appeal (CFA).

[62] On 21 August, the day before the hearing began, 100 members of the group Caring Hong Kong Power (CHKP) planned a march from Victoria Park to Civic Party headquarters in North Point.

The following day, 1,500 people joined a Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions march from Wan Chai to government headquarters in opposition to residence rights for domestic helpers.

On 29 January, Filipino migrant groups held a prayer vigil in Central supporting the right of abode for foreign domestic helpers.

[69] On 21 February, the first day of the Court of Appeal case, the Hong Kong Social Concern Group (香港社會關注組) organised protests calling on the government to seek an interpretation of the Basic Law from the NPCSC.