當我今早看到港澳辦和中聯辦發聲明斥責立法會議員濫權的新聞, 我就「媽」了出來, 聲明很明顯是違反《基本法》、屬干預香港特別行政區內部事務的行為。議員濫權, 以至多月來內務會議選不出主席, 攬炒了香港市民的福祉, 癱瘓政府運作, 這種行為該罵, 但不應由兩辦出口, 畢竟這都是純特區內部事務。當然更值得關注的兩辦評論上訴庭對蒙面法的裁決, 這評論挑動了大律師公會的神經, 以至公會今天立即發聲明:
STATEMENT OF THE HONG KONG BAR ASSOCIATION on comments of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office and the China Liaison Office on affairs of Legislative Council and the mask ban judgment
Article 22(1) of the Basic Law provides:
“No department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law.”
The HKBA notes the recent public comments made by the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office and the China Liaison Office where both institutions expressed approval of the recent Court of Appeal judgment upholding the constitutionality of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance and disapproval with regard to certain current affairs in Legislative Council.
Any public comment made or statement issued by the HKMAO, China Liaison Office and any other state authorities in Hong Kong constitutes an exercise of public authority.
Where such comment or statement touches upon the affairs which the HKSAR administers on its own in accordance with the Basic Law (such as the above two matters) they could easily be perceived as interference in contravention of the principle of one-country, two-system enshrined in the Basic Law including Article 22(1).
The HKBA calls on the relevant authorities to exercise restraint in these matters.
上訴庭蒙面法裁決的判詞, 我啃了幾天才啃完, 一氣呵成看就太折磨自己, 所以我斬件看, 看完了就幾乎悶死了, 所以放棄了寫評論。兩辦發炮也並非一面倒的。Every cloud has a silver lining. 上一篇有朋友留言, 擔心人大會就蒙面法介入釋法, 說人大常委曾經講香港法院無權審查《基本法》。看到兩辦的聲明, 我看到silver lining。兩辦肯定了上訴庭的裁決, 上訴庭花了不少篇幅討論行政長官會同行政會議運用緊急法賦予的權力訂立規則, 圍繞有沒有違反《基本法》這課題作裁決, 兩辦支持上訴庭的裁決, 無形中肯定了香港法院審查《基本法》的權力了。而且, 上訴庭的判詞第98段肯定自己的審查權, 判詞這樣講:
98. Fifth, it is settled law since the establishment of the HKSAR that our courts, in exercising their independent judicial power vested with them by BL19(1) and BL80, have a constitutional duty to enforce and interpret the BL and to examine whether legislation enacted by the legislature and executive acts are consistent with the BL and, if found to be inconsistent, to hold them to be invalid: Ng Ka Ling & Others v Director of Immigration, supra, per Li CJ at p25G-J.
兩辦無形中也肯定香港法院自吳嘉玲案(拜託, 別像梁教授誤作劉嘉玲)以來, 一直有權按《基本法》賦予的權力來審查《基本法》。日後若有人再爭議香港法院這方面的權力, 我就會搬中央政府代表的聲明出來作為佐證。至於蒙面法的爭拗, 終審法院見。
