【政識法字】政治爭拗,法律解決?

近年來,市民的意見不能在立法會和政府的「假諮詢」中有效表達。無奈之下,他們只好把訴求和不滿訴諸法院,以司法覆核的方式挑戰政府的決定和惡法。所有重大的政治議題,都會在法院「走一圈」:丁權、修改《逃犯條例》、DQ案、人大831框架、一地兩檢等等。

法政匯思成員石書銘大律師談『人大釋法』從何而來

七月十五日,梁國雄、羅冠聰、劉小麗及姚松炎被法庭裁定失去議員資格,「梁游事件」引發人大釋法,結果,今次DQ(取消資格)四位議員的主審法官高等法院原訟法庭法官區慶祥,便直接引用人大釋法各點,頒下DQ裁決,判決相關內容:依據《基本法》第104條(連同2016年11月7日全國人民代表大會常務委員會就此條文發出的解釋(“《解釋》”))的恰當詮釋、《宣誓及聲明條例》的條文、以及參考相關案例,法庭指出有關作出立法會誓言的法律規定有以下的原則。

DQ一案 輸了制度輸了民主

4名在立法會選舉中勝出的候選人,包括港島區的羅冠聰、九龍西的劉小麗、新界東的梁國雄,及建築、測量、都市規劃及園境界功能界別的姚松炎,都在立法會首次會議上就職宣誓中,有與法律要求不同的演繹。雖然立法會主席其後准許再宣誓,但在人大釋法後,行政長官和律政司長皆指他們應當被視為拒絕或忽略宣誓,議席因而出缺。

人大釋法 FAQs (FAQs regarding the Interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on 7 November 2016)

What are the NPCSC’s powers of interpretation of the Basic Law?

Article 67(4) of the PRC Constitution and Article 158(1) of the Basic Law gives NPCSC has a freestanding and plenary power of interpretation of the Basic Law. This was also confirmed in the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal case of Lau Kong Yung v Director of Immigration (1999) 2 HKCFAR 300.

However, this power should be sparingly used. Both the Hong Kong Bar Association and the Law Society of Hong Kong have in the past consistently called on the NPCSC to use this power with great restraint, as this would give rise to concerns about the rule of law and judicial independence.

法政匯思意見書:強烈譴責人大釋法 為政治目的濫用解釋權 (Submissions in relation to the Interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on 7 November 2016)

On 7 November 2016, the Standing Committee of the National Peoples Congress (“NPCSC”), in purported exercise of its powers under Article 158 of the Basic Law, issued an interpretation in relation to Article 104 of the Basic Law (“the Interpretation”). 

2. This is the fifth time the NPCSC has interpreted the Basic Law. In summary, and as further explained below, the Progressive Lawyers Group’s submissions on the Interpretation are set out in this statement.