讀梁游議席案判詞,反思香港法制

十一月 17th, 2016 by 思考/HK-X-Force Leave a reply »

判詞(案件號碼 HCAL 185/2016):
全文
中文擇要
(或在此輸入案件號碼搜索)

參考資料:
政大法學評論 – 議會至上與人大至上
維基百科 – 英國憲法
維基百科 – 法律解釋

讀過判詞後,筆者感覺最重要的並非兩位議員的去向,而是中間第D1段,尤其是第51至53段,顯示香港法院對現今法制運作的看法。

法官引用2007年梁國雄vs立法會主席案件,指出英國三權分立不能直接套用於香港。英國由於沒有成文憲法,議會對所有法例有最高權威,沒有其他機構能夠廢除或廢棄(override or set aside)議會所通過的法律。基於這個議會至上(sovereignty of Parliament)原則,法庭是司法機構,沒有法理依據去判斷或質疑立法機關(議會)所擁有的權力。

但香港的結構不同,有《基本法》這部迷你憲法。《基本法》的法律地位就如英國的議會,在立法會之上,所以法庭有法理依據去根據《基本法》判斷立法會擁有何種權、特權及豁免權,包括立法會內部運作程序是否合乎《基本法》。上述判詞不單止表示法庭在《基本法》授權下能夠介入立法會內部運作,其實背後還隱含了人大對香港法治的決定性影響力。

判詞重申《基本法》在香港的最高地位,當中包含人大釋法的最高權力。香港雖然是一國兩制,但是在《基本法》的限制下,固有的法制根基其實已無法維持。在實行普通法的地區,只有司法機構(如法院)有法律解釋權。如果立法機關認為需要釐清法例含糊之處,只能透過立法或修訂法律的程序進行,避免出現立法機關推翻司法機關的情況。而香港在《基本法》的架構下,雖然內部實行普通法,立法會不干預法院司法,但同時作為迷你憲法《基本法》並不遵循此原則,其立法機關——人大——有權解釋《基本法》,是憲法容許立法機關干預司法機關。所以,《基本法》讓港香港人日常感受到的法律運作看似不變,但其實法制的根基已偷換為中共法制,所謂法治與自由都是建築在人治及專權之上,如何能穩固?

香港繼續在現有的一國兩制及《基本法》下,無可避免會受到那極權的影響。既有法制上一次又一次的衝擊,又有在生活上、工作上人們因為強大誘惑下漸漸放棄自己的原則,香港的優勢——自由、公平、法治、用人唯才、實幹、不作無謂口號式政策等——一點一滴地揮發。究竟市民是否只能夠一而再、再而三地自我催眠,告訴自己甚麼事都沒發生?還是我們還有自救的可能?

本案判詞第51段(節錄):
The non-intervention principle has its origin in common law and is premised on the doctrine of separation of powers in England, where there is no written constitution, and where there is supremacy of the Parliament.  However, the scope of this principle as applied in a different jurisdiction must be understood in and limited to the proper context of that jurisdiction, in particular where there is a written constitution.[14] Thus, in present day Hong Kong, where there is the written constitution of the BL and where the BL is supreme instead of the legislature, the court does have jurisdiction under the BL to determine, by declaratory relief, questions such as whether the internal Rules of Procedure enacted by the LegCo (which would be regarded as “the internal matters” of the Parliament under the non-intervention principle in the UK) are consistent with the BL.

引用的2007年梁國雄vs立法會主席案件判詞(節錄):
His Lordship pointed out that in the United Kingdom, Parliament is supreme. The courts there are confined to interpreting and applying what Parliament has enacted. Parliament has exclusive control over the conduct of its own affairs. The courts will not permit any challenge to the manner in which Parliament goes about its business. If there are irregularities, that is a matter for Parliament to resolve, not the courts. However, in Hong Kong, the Basic Law is supreme. But subject to that, the Basic Law recognises the Legislative Council to be a sovereign body under that law. In setting Rules of Procedure to govern how it goes about the process of making laws, provided those rules are not in conflict with the Basic Law, the Legislative Council is ‘answerable to no outside authority’. The learned Judge concluded that so far as jurisdiction is concerned, the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region do have jurisdiction under the Basic Law to determine, by way of declaratory relief, whether Rules of Procedure enacted by the Legislative Council are consistent with the Basic Law.

Advertisement

發表迴響