<轉載自2019年11月20日 明報 社評>
高等法院裁定，港府引用《緊急法》推行《禁蒙面法》，不符《基本法》的立法和行政憲制秩序，又指《禁蒙面法》所作限制「超出合理所需」，惹來中央強烈關注，國務院港澳辦強調人大常委會確認《緊急法》符合《基本法》，裁決公然挑戰人大權威。根據憲制秩序安排，《基本法》解釋權在人大手中，不過《禁蒙面法》實施個多月，止暴制亂效用並不顯著，未能遏阻暴力升級，亦是客觀實情。人大有權主動介入釋法，然而釋法加劇局勢緊張、觸發更多暴力的風險亦不能低估，盡量讓香港按照司法程序，處理緊急法的法律觀點爭議，是政治風險最小的選擇。
禁蒙面未止暴制亂 人大釋法恐添震盪
上月初，行政長官林鄭月娥會同行政會議，以「危害公安」為由，引用《緊急法》制定《禁蒙面法》，希望止暴制亂。《緊急法》沿襲自港英時代，民主派議員質疑《緊急法》和《禁蒙面法》是否合憲，提出司法覆核。高院裁決未有全盤否定《緊急法》合憲性，對「緊急情况」下援引是否違憲存而不論，惟裁定《緊急法》在「危害公安」情况下使用有違《基本法》，意味《禁蒙面法》亦失去法理基礎。裁決指出，《基本法》規定立法權在立法會，並未賦予行政機關，特首若基於「危害公安」便可引用《緊急法》立法，範圍過於廣泛，立法會難以制約。《禁蒙面法》方面，高院認為和平合法集會也受限制，「超出合理需要」。律政司若有不服，可以提出上訴，爭取上訴庭盡快審理。
香港局勢緊繃，政府引用《緊急法》制定《禁蒙面法》，本身就是備受爭議的決定，高院裁決惹來各方議論，某程度亦是意料之中，最須留意的當然是中央取態。人大常委會法制工作委員會發言人表示，部分全國人大代表對裁決「強烈不滿」，法工委正研究全國人大代表的建議。「人大釋法」的可能性，頓成各方焦點。
香港奉行一國兩制，高度自治權由中央賦予。《基本法》第158條訂明，《基本法》解釋權在人大手中，人大常委會有權「主動釋法」。3年前立法會宣誓風波，高院開審不久後，人大常委會便率先主動釋法，處理宣誓問題。回看今次《緊急法》和《禁蒙面法》爭議，不能排除人大再次主動釋法，惟從香港角度而言，此舉無可避免會帶來震盪，為亂局添加更多變數。
警方強調《禁蒙面法》有助執法，高院裁決亦提到，蒙面確有「壯膽」效能，蒙面者肆意違法，警方亦難以執法。港澳辦認為《禁蒙面法》對止暴制亂發揮積極作用，惟平情而論，《禁蒙面法》執行個多月，對於止暴制亂幫助很有限，迄今警方以《禁蒙面法》提出檢控的個案不多。除了暴力分子蒙面，不少普通示威者亦選擇蒙面參與非法集會。國家主席習近平強調，止暴制亂恢復秩序是香港當前最緊迫任務。高院裁決雖令警方手上少了一個法律工具，惟《禁蒙面法》效用本來就不大，從「止暴為先」考慮事情緩急，有關《禁蒙面法》的法律紛爭，不見得一定非急於處理不可。
當然，從中央角度，是否需要釋法，考慮不止是止暴制亂。港澳辦和人大法工委認為，全國人大常委會已於1997年確認《緊急法》符合《基本法》，可以作為特區法律，現在特首只是按《基本法》和人大決定履行職權，高院的裁決不僅「嚴重削弱行政長官應有的管治權力」，更是「公然挑戰」人大常委會的權威。四中全會強調「完善全國人大常委會對基本法的解釋制度，依法行使憲法和基本法賦予中央的各項權力」，落實對特區的全面管治權，港澳辦主任張曉明闡述四中決定，更提到《基本法》解釋權的行使，不應取決於某些人的主觀好惡，而應根據實際需要決定，「該解釋就解釋」。
中央部門反應強烈，背後折射中央與香港長期觀點分歧，以及愈益嚴重的互不信任緊張關係。過去內地輿論對香港「洋法官」等問題，本來已有不少意見。反修例風暴以來一些判案，諸如侮辱國旗僅判社會服務令，在美國領事館外塗鴉卻被判囚，更惹來巨大迴響。早前國務院副總理韓正接見林鄭月娥，提到香港行政、立法、司法機關有共同責任止暴制亂，三權要合作。今次高院裁決看在很多港人眼裏，是三權分立相互制衡的體現，惟看在中央眼裏，卻猶如是公然挑戰國家領導人的要求。
恪守一國尊重兩制 中港審慎處理分歧
一國兩制行穩致遠，需要各守分際，既要恪守一國，亦要尊重兩制，然而當前情况卻是背道而馳。在香港，有人不斷挑戰一國，中央打擊港獨，管控也愈來愈緊。人大法工委表示，特區法律是否符合《基本法》，只能由人大定斷，「任何其他機關無權決定」，終審法院前首席法官李國能對此深表關注，因為這有悖一直以來的做法，人大在本地法院裁決後釋法，將損害香港司法獨立的觀感。中央部門對高院裁決雖有不滿，惟暫時未見進一步行動，希望中央可以多留空間，盡量讓香港按照本地司法程序，處理相關爭議。
High Court's ruling
THE High Court has ruled that the Hong Kong government's invocation of
the Emergency Regulations Ordinance (the Ordinance) to implement the
Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation (the Regulation) violates the
constitutional order concerning the legislature and administration as stipulated
in the Basic Law. It has also ruled that the restriction imposed by the
Regulation "exceeds what is reasonably necessary". This has aroused
intense concern from the central government. The spokesperson of the Hong Kong
and Macao Office of the State Council stresses that the Standing Committee of
the National People's Congress confirms that the Ordinance is compatible with
the Basic Law, and the ruling is an open challenge to the authority of the
National People's Congress.
Early last month the Chief Executive in Council, citing "a state of
serious public danger", invoked the Ordinance to enact the Regulation in
the hope of stopping violence and curbing disorder. The Ordinance has its
origins in the British colonial era. Pan-democratic lawmakers argued that the
Ordinance and the Regulation were unconstitutional and filed for judicial
review. The ruling of the High Court does not fully deny the constitutionality
of the Ordinance and does not comment on whether it is constitutional to invoke
the Ordinance in urgent circumstances. But the court rules that Ordinance's
invocation "on any occasion of public danger" contravenes the Basic
Law, meaning that the Regulation does not have legal foundations. The ruling
says that the Basic Law stipulates that the legislative authority is vested in
the legislature but not the executive branch of government. If it is possible
for the chief executive to enact a law by invoking the Ordinance "on any
occasion of public danger", the scope will be too broad for the legislative
council to exercise checks and balances. As for the Regulation, the High Court
rules that as peaceful, legal assemblies will also be limited, it "exceeds
what is reasonably necessary". If the Department of Justice does not agree
with the judgement, it can appeal the decision.
Hong Kong is underpinned by "One country, two systems". Its
high degree of autonomy is accorded by the central government. Article 158 of
the Basic Law states that "the power of interpretation of this Law shall
be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress". It
has the power to interpret the Basic Law on its own initiative. Three years
ago, amid the "oath-taking" saga in the Legislative Council, the
Standing Committee of the National People's Congress took the initiative to
interpret the Basic Law soon after the High Court began hearing the case. Amid
the ongoing controversy over the Ordinance and Regulation, the possibility of
the Standing Committee reinterpreting the Basic Law on its own initiative
cannot be ruled out. However, from the perspective of Hong Kong, such action
will inevitably bring about shock waves and add to the uncertainty of the
turmoil.
The strong reactions from the agencies of the central government reflect
the long-standing differences in views between the central government and Hong
Kong and the increasingly serious mistrust and tense relations. In the past
there were views from the mainland against "foreign judges" in Hong
Kong. Some rulings since the beginning of the anti-amendment storm, in which
someone who had insulted the national emblem was given a community service
order while someone who had painted graffiti outside the US Consulate General
was imprisoned have led to even greater repercussions.
For "One country, two systems" to be on a stable and
sustainable path, all sides should stay within the boundaries. "One
country" should be adhered to, but "two systems" should also be
respected. What is happening runs contrary to that. Though agencies of the
central government are unhappy with the ruling, they have yet to make the next
move. It is hoped that the central government will allow more room for Hong
Kong to deal with the controversies in question in accordance with local
judicial procedure.
高院裁決觸動中央 港事港辦仍屬上策
高等法院裁定，港府引用《緊急法》推行《禁蒙面法》，不符《基本法》的立法和行政憲制秩序，又指《禁蒙面法》所作限制「超出合理所需」，惹來中央強烈關注，國務院港澳辦強調人大常委會確認《緊急法》符合《基本法》，裁決公然挑戰人大權威。
上月初，行政長官會同行政會議以「危害公安」為由，引用《緊急法》制定《禁蒙面法》，希望止暴制亂。《緊急法》沿襲自港英時代，民主派議員質疑《緊急法》和《禁蒙面法》是否合憲，提出司法覆核。高院裁決未有全盤否定《緊急法》合憲性，對「緊急情况」下援引是否違憲存而不論，惟裁定《緊急法》在「危害公安」情况下使用有違《基本法》，意味《禁蒙面法》亦失去法理基礎。裁決指出，《基本法》規定立法權在立法會，並未賦予行政機關，特首若基於「危害公安」便可引用《緊急法》立法，範圍過於廣泛，立法會難以制約。《禁蒙面法》方面，高院認為和平合法集會也受限制，「超出合理需要」。律政司若有不服，可以提出上訴。
香港奉行一國兩制，高度自治權由中央賦予。《基本法》第158條訂明，《基本法》解釋權在人大手中，人大常委會有權「主動釋法」。3年前立法會宣誓風波，高院開審不久後，人大常委會便率先主動釋法，處理宣誓問題。回看今次《緊急法》和《禁蒙面法》爭議，不能排除人大再次主動釋法，惟從香港角度而言，此舉無可避免會帶來震盪，為亂局添加更多變數。
中央部門反應強烈，背後折射中央與香港長期觀點分歧，以及愈益嚴重的互不信任緊張關係。過去內地輿論對香港「洋法官」等問題，本來已有不少意見。反修例風暴以來一些判案，諸如侮辱國旗僅判社會服務令，在美國領事館外塗鴉卻被判囚，更惹來巨大迴響。
沒有留言:
張貼留言