法院判決 (人大釋法)

今次判決的要點如下(數字為段落)：

7.于2016年11月7日，全國人民代表大會常務委員會行使《基本法》第一百五十八條賦予的權力，正式頒佈對《基本法》第一百零四條含義的解釋(“該解釋”)。該解釋對香港所有的法庭均具有約束力，而法庭應落實該解釋。

* 所有的法庭包括今次高等法院，最後一句意味着今次判決亦已落實了該解釋。

9.另一方面，法庭也接納行政長官／律政司司長的陳詞，認為香港法例下《宣誓及聲明條例》的有關條文，在不受該解釋影響下而作出適當詮釋，其意思及法律效力也與《基本法》第一百零四條的上述含義相同。

* 最後一句意味着今次判決已跟從了人大釋法的含義。

10.法庭採用以立法原意為基礎的詮釋方法及根據普通法，裁定《宣誓及聲明條例》第16、19、及21條具有以下的意思及效力：

* 這一句意味着須採用[釋法所確立的]立法原意(不僅是普通法)。

10(a) 《宣誓及聲明條例》中有關條文反映及強調《基本法》第一百零四條的規定 ...

* 即以第104條的憲制規定為本。

10(d)誓言必須莊重及真誠地作出，那是宣誓人表達他會憑着良知忠誠、從實地履行有關行為的一種見證形式。一項效忠或表達忠誠的誓言，代表宣誓人向特定政權及政府承諾及保證作出真誠效忠，並支持其憲法。

* 早前湯家驊表示，議員是否拒絕或忽略宣誓，要由本港法院裁決，宣誓最重要的元素是「真誠」，單是「不莊重」不足以取消議員資格。

** 正如我早前說，今次法院判詞確立了兩者並重。

* "向特定政權及政府承諾及保證作出真誠效忠，並支持其憲法"：這個說法比較特別。

10(e)就《宣誓及聲明條例》的目的而言，“拒絕”一詞是指有意圖地不願或反對按照法例的規定作出宣誓的行為；而“忽略”一詞是指一項不按照法例的規定履行宣誓責任的蓄意或故意的(相對於不慎或意外的)不作為。

* "相對於不慎或意外的"：符合釋法有關"故意"的說法。

10(f)假如立法會議員不論在形式或內容上“拒絕或忽略”作出立法會誓言，按照法律他定會(“必須”)被視為離任(若已就任)或被取消其就任資格(若未就任)。

* "不論在形式或內容上"：符合釋法的意思，即兩者缺一不可。

11. ... 因為客觀及明顯地，他們並不承認“一國兩制”的原則及該原則下“一國”的重要性，終審法院亦已清楚確認該等原則是建立中華人民共和國香港特別行政區的基石，以及奠定建基於《基本法》的香港憲制模式。

* 判決重申了一國的重要性。

15. ... 在該終審法院案例中衍生出以下原則：(1)在香港應用不干預原則時，必須符合《基本法》相關的憲制規定；(2)當《基本法》委予立法機關立法權力及責任時，法庭是有權力裁定立法機關是有否擁有某一權力、特權、或豁免權；及(3)在處理何事可被視為立法會的“內部事務”或“內部程序”時，應留意上述的規範。

* 判決就三權分立在《基本法》框架下的定位作了清晰的表述。法院有權裁定立法機關是否擁有某一權力 (但正如我早前說，如何運用該權力是立法會主席的判斷、立法會的家事)。今次判決否定了主席有權安排再次宣誓。

16.在應用上述原則的情況下，適用於香港的不干預原則並不會禁止法庭裁斷以下問題：(a)一名立法會議員的誓言是否符合《基本法》第一百零四條中的重要憲制規定(及《宣誓及聲明條例》中的法律規定)，以及(b)當一名立法會議員的誓言不符合相關的憲制及法律規定，會否基於《基本法》第一百零四條及／或《宣誓及聲明條例》第21條，取消其就任資格。

* 即同時須符合第104條的重要憲制規定(及本地立法中的法律規定)，缺一不可。

17.法庭亦認為，《宣誓及聲明條例》第19及21條，以及該解釋第(四)段，均沒有明文指出監誓人有最終決定權，裁定一項宣誓是否符合《基本法》第一百零四條及香港法例。因此，儘管立法會主席或立法會秘書有附帶責任及權力，在有實際需要時去判定一項誓言是否符合法律要求，但法庭亦裁定，對於本案有爭議的事宜，法庭是有最終的判決權。

* 早前曾鈺成說，監誓人没有權褫奪候任議員資格。

** 按上述判決，正如我早前說，監誓人有此附帶責任及權力(褫奪候任議員資格)，但此權受制於司法覆核。即不存在監誓人就其決定須尋求法院確認 (第二層決定)的需要。

21.對於行政長官是否有資格(locus)提起訴訟，法庭裁定由於《基本法》第四十八條訂明行政長官有憲法責任執行《基本法》及其他香港的法律，所以行政長官有資格(locus)提出司法覆核及HCMP 2819/2016的申請。

* 根據《基本法》第48條，行政長官有資格提出訴訟。

。。。

China

my post to HKFP:

some westerners cherish the value of total freedom like the US, but Chinese people value stability.

only 17% of hk people want independence, according to a survey conducted by hku.  and no one therefore would say that 83% love the CCP.  in short, hk people are very pragmatic.   we love our motherland and we want stability.

while it took the US more than 2 centuries to develop its democracy (and see the chaos they are now in), let's give China a bit more time.  there are still 700 million peasants.   when there are more and more middle class and university graduates, democracy will grow and flourish.

one thing about China which westerners may not know or understand is that after a chaotic century (the Opium Wars, imposition of unequal treaties of ceding Hong Kong and Macau, intrusion and ransacking by the Eight-Nation Alliance, overthrow of the Qing Dynasty, Japanese invasion, civil wars among KMT warlords and between CCP and KMT, cultural revolution, etc) Chinese people are desperate for peace, stability and prosperity at whatever costs.

some people say because of Mao many people died in the cultural revolution, and therefore we must hate the CCP.  on the other hand,  one can also say, given that painful experience, Chinese people don't want chaos anymore.

...

oath taking

see what the court has to say tomorrow about the duo.  having mandate or otherwise, one still has to observe the law and comply with the statutory requirements.   no such thing as automatic assumption of office.

getting a mandate from say 30,000 people is one thing, taking an oath to swear allegiance to the HKSAR of PRC, i.e. including 7 million people here in hk, is a totally different thing.

監誓人

曾鈺成說，監誓人没有權褫奪候任議員資格。

根據全國人大常委會對基本法第104條的解釋，監誓人對不符合本解釋和香港特別行政區法律規定的宣誓，應確定為無效宣誓，並不得重新安排宣誓；未進行合法有效宣誓或者拒絕宣誓，不得就任相應公職，不得行使相應職權和享受相應待遇。

假設監誓人不作任何跟進行動，包括褫奪該人士的資格，便不能安排補選。若監誓人尋求司法確認，即等同監誓人的決定須由法院再次決定(即第二層決定)，這樣做不符合釋法的規定。

只有在有關法例沒有明顯表明監誓人有權確定宣誓無效的情況下，才需要法院介入。否則，監誓人有權褫奪議員資格，然後進行補選，不言而喻。當然，有關人士可以尋求司法覆核，這是另一個問題了。

誰任監誓人比較合適，可以另作討論。

NPCSC's power of interpretation and amendment of the BL

The CFA's judgement on 3 December 1999, paragraph 143:

"I am equally in no doubt that the Interpretation took effect as from 1 July 1997. In making it, the Standing Committee did not purport to act, and has never purported to act, as a Court. Nor did it purport to be amending the law. It was doing exactly what it said it was doing, namely interpreting the law. That must mean that they were explaining what the law is and has been since the Basic Law came into effect."

Ref : LAU KONG YUNG AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [1999] HKCFA 4; [1999] 3 HKLRD 778; (1999) 2 HKCFAR 300; [1999] 4 HKC 731 ; FACV 10/1999 (3 December 1999)

第一次釋法已經自行確認了該次釋法由1997年7月1日起生效。只不過今次人大釋法沒有說明這一點。

下級法院有眾多法官可能有不同看法，須由終審法院一槌定音。分別在於人大釋法言簡意賅，而終審法院的闡述肯定了：(1)除了第一次釋法，以後釋法即使沒有提及，所有釋法均有追溯力；(2) 釋法不是修法；(3)全國人大常委會只是解釋了立法原意，無意取代法院審理案件。
...

Other references:

The CFA's judgement on 29 January 1999, which caused an uproar in HK and Beijing:

"It is therefore for the courts of the Region to determine whether an act of the National People's Congress or its Standing Committee is inconsistent with the Basic Law, subject of course to the provisions of the Basic Law itself."

Ref : NG KA LING AND ANOTHER v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [1999] HKCFA 72; [1999] 1 HKLRD 315; (1999) 2 HKCFAR 4; [1999] 1 HKC 291 ; FACV 14/1998 (29 January 1999)
...

Subsequently, the CFA clarified on 26 February 1999:

"The Court's judgment on 29 January 1999 did not question the authority of the Standing Committee to make an interpretation under Article 158 which would have to be followed by the courts of the Region. The Court accepts that it cannot question that authority. Nor did the Court's judgment question, and the Court accepts that it cannot question, the authority of the National People's Congress or the Standing Committee to do any act which is in accordance with the provisions of the Basic Law and the procedure therein."

Ref : NG KA LING AND ANOTHER v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [1999] HKCFA 81; [1999] 1 HKLRD 577; (1999) 2 HKCFAR 141; [1999] 1 HKC 425 ; FACV 14/1998 (26 February 1999)
...

According to BL19(3), the courts have no jurisdiction over acts of state. Note the words "such as". In the Chinese text, the word is "etc". As long as the NPCSC invokes Article 67 of the Constitution and BL158(1) to interpret the BL, the courts of the Region cannot question the legality of the Interpretation. I would argue that at best the courts of the Region may seek further clarification from the NPCSC.

BL19(3): “The courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall have no jurisdiction over acts of state such as defence and foreign affairs. The courts of the Region shall obtain a certificate from the Chief Executive on questions of fact concerning acts of state such as defence and foreign affairs whenever such questions arise in the adjudication of cases. This certificate shall be binding on the courts. Before issuing such a certificate, the Chief Executive shall obtain a certifying document from the Central People’s Government."
...

Someone asked whether the NPC may repeal or amend the BL in its own right, and definitely the answer is yes. The BL is a national law. Any national law is subject to repeal or amendment by the NPC, which is the highest organ of state power. BL159 provides that the power to propose bills for amendments is vested in the NPCSC, the State Council, and the HKSAR. For the HKSAR, it has to go through the motion of obtaining the prescribed consent.

BL159:

The power of amendment of this Law shall be vested in the National People's Congress.

The power to propose bills for amendments to this Law shall be vested in the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the State Council and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Amendment bills from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be submitted to the National People's Congress by the delegation of the Region to the National People's Congress after obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the deputies of the Region to the National People's Congress, two-thirds of all the members of the Legislative Council of the Region, and the Chief Executive of the Region.

Before a bill for amendment to this Law is put on the agenda of the National People's Congress, the Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall study it and submit its views.

No amendment to this Law shall contravene the established basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong.
...

拒絕或忽略宣誓

民主思路召集人湯家驊表示，議員是否拒絕或忽略宣誓，要由本港法院裁決，宣誓最重要的元素是「真誠」，單是「不莊重」不足以取消議員資格。

...


個人認為，缺一不可。普通法不能違反基本法，人大釋法與基本法有同等效力。即使宣誓達到本地立法要求，仍須達到釋法要求，即第104條的要求。若本地立法未能符合第104條的要求，法官應以第104條的要求去闡釋本地立法的要求，而不應以不符合基本法/釋法的要求去闡釋本地立法的要求，否則只會不必要地制造另一次憲制危機。法官除了以普通法審理案件，亦有責任以基本法審理案件，不能完全與西方社會看齊。這就是一國兩制特色。


根據全國人大常委會對基本法第104條的解釋，監誓人對不符合本解釋和香港特別行政區法律規定的宣誓，應確定為無效宣誓，並不得重新安排宣誓；未進行合法有效宣誓或者拒絕宣誓，不得就任相應公職，不得行使相應職權和享受相應待遇。


簡言之，不單要符合本地法例的要求，亦要符合釋法的要求。


。。。

NPCSC's Interpretation of the Basic Law

Thanks to Ronny Tong Ka-wah, SC, I found the CFA judgement touching on the NPCSC's Interpretation of the Basic Law, which should be able to put to bed the retrospective issue once and for all :

LAU KONG YUNG AND OTHERS v. THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [1999] HKCFA 4; [1999] 3 HKLRD 778; (1999) 2 HKCFAR 300; [1999] 4 HKC 731 ; FACV 10/1999 (3 December 1999)

72. The Interpretation, being an interpretation of the relevant provisions, dates from 1 July 1997 when the Basic Law came into effect. It declared what the law has always been. Compare the common law declaratory theory of judicial decisions, see Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council [1998] 3 WLR 1095 at 1117 - 1119 and 1148.

143. I am equally in no doubt that the Interpretation took effect as from 1 July 1997. In making it, the Standing Committee did not purport to act, and has never purported to act, as a Court. Nor did it purport to be amending the law. It was doing exactly what it said it was doing, namely interpreting the law. That must mean that they were explaining what the law is and has been since the Basic Law came into effect.

第一次釋法已經自行確認了該次釋法由1997年7月1日起生效。只不過今次人大釋法沒有說明這一點。

下級法院有眾多法官可能有不同看法，須由終審法院一槌定音。分別在於人大釋法言簡意賅，而終審法院的闡述肯定了：(1)除了第一次釋法，以後釋法即使沒有提及，所有釋法均有追溯力；(2) 釋法不是修法；(3)全國人大常委會只是解釋了立法原意，無意取代法院審理案件。

鍾庭耀 / RTHK

RTHK：[鍾庭耀] 認為根據美國歷屆選舉的經驗，若特首梁振英連任，並做足10年特首，其民望將會是一個災難。

...

作為民意調查的主管，可以用個人評論去預先影響民意調查，難怪無論是西方社會或是香港，再沒有人信任民意調查及傳媒(尤其是RTHK)了。

。。。

Iphone

"將產業遷回美國本土，以創造更多新職位。"

結果，iphone 太貴，美國人買唔起，而中國加大了關税，中國人亦買唔起。

Nuclear Football

mark the day when Obama hands over the nuclear football to Trump. it will be the day when the US presents another Kim Jong-un to the world. lol

保護主義

如果咁簡單就好囉，各國政府就閉關自守，不用貿易，豐衣足食。

polls

polls are like the best possible guess, better than blind guess. reality is another thing. like if i say you have 90% chance of winning it doesn't mean you will win.

e.g. if i interview 1,000 people out of 10,000 by random sampling and if all 1,000 people happen to say they love apples, it doesn't follow that all 10,000 people must love apples.
...

some pundits say that another reason is that people lie, but i don't know why they have to do this. 

mine is a more philosophical one. of course some may argue that if random sampling is done better the probability should be so reflected. but then in reality there is no perfect random sampling. from an empiricism point of view, as opposed to a rationalist point of view, the probability theory cannot be proved in the real world as we don't do things perfectly and we don't master eternity.

尊重

回想當年，終審法院沒有提請人大釋法是錯的，可參考第一次人大常委會釋法的文本，可能當時各人對基本法還是陌生吧。

但令各界嘩然反而是終審法院當時說，"特區法院有司法管轄權去審查人大或其常委會的立法行為是否符合基本法﹐ 如果不符合的話便宣告它們無效"，這才是問題所在。因為根據憲法，人大是國家最高權力機關；而根據基本法，特區法院根本無權去質疑國家行為。

多年來，香港人再沒有提起此事了。

但過去兩年，多宗判案都令很多人不明白甚至質疑法官的想法及有沒有政治傾向。

最近，胡官甚至說三權之中，司法權最大！

歸根究底，尊重是人家給的。

特首宣誓

根據基本法104條，若有人對行政長官宣誓提出訴訟，如何處理。除了人大釋法及有關說明(非故意可以再次宣誓)，還有以下分析。

早前陳佐洱引述已故的魯平指，基本法第二章將「國家行為」涵蓋為「國防、外交等」，當中的「等」字，代表了香港擁有的行政權、立法權、獨立的司法權和終審權，都是中央授予的，是中央應有的權力。

根據基本法第19條，香港特別行政區法院對國防、外交等國家行為無管轄權。香港特別行政區法院在審理案件中遇有涉及國防、外交等國家行為的事實問題，應取得行政長官就該等問題發出的證明文件，上述文件對法院有約束力。行政長官在發出證明文件前，須取得中央人民政府的證明書。

換言之，中央監誓是國家行為，除非中央事後也認為當時監誓出錯，否則就特區法院而言，中央已接受行政長官的宣誓是毋庸置疑的。

人大釋法 追溯力

人大釋法一定有追溯力，道理很簡單。

例如：就一單三年前發生的案件，終審法院尋求釋法，之後人大釋法。難道釋法只影響將來的案件。那麼，終審法院尋求釋法幹嘛？

大國崛起 (懶人包)

大國崛起 (懶人包)

理性主義、個人主義、資本主義。
解放勞動生產力、剝削勞工童工。

船堅炮利，殖民剝削。
海盗横行，民間策略。
八國聯軍，殺人搶掠。
販賣黑奴，身心剝削。
中東石油，霸佔剝削。
非法移民，國內剝削。
跨國企業，金融侵略。
文化潮流，精神剝削。
使未來錢，下代剝削。
大國崛起，建基剝削！

東方價值觀

世事無絕對。相對而言，似乎新加坡模式應該更適合東方社會。我留意到菲律賓總統宣布加入中國的意識形態隊伍，在意識形態上向東方靠攏。

中東亂局、英美各自內部分裂、歐盟面對瓦解威脅，這一切源於美國霸權主義，到處搞局。美國欠債累累，先使未來錢，但內部仍貧富懸殊，社會問題病入膏肓。以前美國分裂他國，現時美國已開始自我分裂。

個人主義、精英主義走得太盡，物極必反。在互聯網世界，每個人都認為自己擁有真理，真理已不存在傳統精英手裡。社交媒體已把社會分了兩大陣營。

現時沒有人再信任傳媒、學者、專業(尤其法律界)、教師、民調，一切已政治化。東方價值觀(集體主義)正在挑戰西方價值觀(個人主義)，事態發展如何，拭目以待。

美國

中東亂局、英美各自內部分裂、歐盟面對瓦解威脅，這一切源於美國霸權主義，到處搞局。美國欠債累累，先使未來錢，但內部仍貧富懸殊，社會問題病入膏肓，難怪選民力求改變。惟事已至此，談何容易。

以事論事

無論梁游如何錯，只可以事論事，不應該趕盡殺絕，例如跟踪錄影，或揭人隱私。

充權

世界因為互聯網的充權而顯得扁平了，無論是政府、企業家或管理層都應該相應地與人民或員工分享成果及權力，否則充了權的意識與實際享權的落差只會帶來災難性後果。

道德高地

the moral is that in this internet era, where netizens have their own collective views of the world, those elites who think they stand on moral high ground will suffer the same fate as Clinton.

只會唱高調的政黨、以為長佔道德高地的政客，隨時會被互聯網世代摒棄。

文明

美國總統選舉過後，如何信傳媒？如何信民意調查？

文明建基於信任和包容。

政治正確已不合時宜。

文明在倒退，霸權在崩潰。

個人主義、精英主義走得太盡，物極必反。

在互聯網世界，每個人都認為自己擁有真理，真理已不存在精英手裡。

NPCSC's interpretation

...

if not for the NPCSC's interpretation, two possibilities of the court ruling: (a) the LegCo President was wrong to give the duo a second chance; or (b) the President should have the prerogative to decide and it's not for the court to meddle in LegCo's affairs ...

for (a) it would be a heavy blow on the President's reputation and i don't think the court would like to do that; and for (b) it would be against the mainstream view if the duo would be given another chance. 

in short,  it's kind of a constitutional dilemma, just like three siblings embroiled in a fight with inevitable damage one way or another, and so NPCSC stepped in to save the day.

...

有關《基本法》第158條是否有追溯力的問題

有關《基本法》第158條是否有追溯力的問題：

(1) 首先，當年的居留權案，經人大釋法後，無論是釋法前或釋法後出生的港人子女，都同受影響。

(2) 任何還未終審的案件，有關法官都必須跟從人大的解釋。難道法官可以偏離該解釋嗎？試想：法官可否說，立法會主席有權安排第二次宣誓？或可否說有關人士不用莊重地宣誓？若可以，那麼法官憑甚麼準則去作如此判斷呢？

(3) 退一步去想，若法院表示不干預立法會的家事並交由立法會主席自行決定，那麼立法會主席仍須按人大釋法去跟進。

(4) 就今屆立法會，還沒有出現任何一宗法院的判決，因此只要有人提出司法覆核，即使已就任仍可褫奪其資格；即使與港獨問題無明顯關係，但由於在宣誓時其行為不莊重，仍可受到挑戰。

(5) 參考全國人大常委會辦公廳新聞發佈會：

[李飞] 全国人大常委会依法对基本法有关规定作出的解释，香港的本地法律包括普通法在内都不能与它相抵触。

[李飞] 法律解释是对法律规定的原意一个阐明，它不是重新立法。所以，它的效力是它所解释的法律生效时就存在的，但是有一个情况，考虑到基本法要在特区实施，而香港过去实施的是普通法，所以它对法律作出的解释在法律规定的情况下对个别案件是可以豁免的。但是这个豁免不是法律解释从它公布时才产生效力，这个效力和它所解释的法律是同时存在的。只是考虑到为了维护法律关系的稳定性，特别是已经既判终局判决的执行，所以大家再回到第一百五十八条的规定上来，“已经作出的终局的判决不受影响”，这只是对个别案件的豁免，不是说这个解释从公布时才有效力。

。。。

基本法第158條："如全國人民代表大會常務委員會作出解釋，香港特別行政區法院在引用該條款時，應以全國人民代表大會常務委員會的解釋為準。但在此以前作出的判決不受影響。"

...

釋法

釋法："宣誓人作虛假宣誓或者在宣誓之后從事違反誓言行為的，依法承擔法律責任。"

BL77："香港特別行政區立法會議員在立法會的會議上發言，不受法律追究。 "

如何理解 在立法會的會議上發言，例如宣揚港獨，是否不受法律追究呢？

　　

independence

this is reality, that's all i can say.  scotland and quebec have constitutional law to follow.  but we don't have such arrangement here,  nor does london or new york.

as we won't let mongkok seek independence, and if mongkok insists,  we 7 million people will decide,  not just them.   likewise,  if hk wishes to do so,  the 1.3 billion people should have a say.   same goes with london, new york etc.

the judiciary

ex-judge Woo Kwok-hing said that among the three powers, the court is the most powerful. As a candidate for the top job, his remark could have been the last straw, or at least it has been most untimely. And in the Right of Abode case, the CFA said that it has inherent jurisdiction to rule that the NPCSC/NPC is wrong, which is most unthinkable in constitutional law, BL, common sense and reality.

As you said, and I believe, the CPG has been wary of this mindset of the judiciary (and the legal profession, notably the civic party) for a long time, but CPG has to put up with it, until this time. As I see it, not only CPG, but if you read the Chinese paper and browse the Chinese internet, you would find that so many HK people and columnists (all local) have been extremely disappointed and even angry with the judiciary in their lenient treatment of protesters (which has failed to stop the instability and chaos in HK). Many people are concerned that HK's rankings in many aspects, such as university rankings, innovation etc have been lagging behind. Having said that, no one queries about the fair judgments as regards commercial cases, which is fine.

P.S. ex-judge Woo Kwok-hing even said that occupy central is good fun, and that he would have participated in it were he 50 years younger. Again, this is unthinkable, and it's only natural that CPG, I think, has doubts about the mindset of the judiciary.  By the way, Judge Thomas Au who presides over this case is/was a civic party member.

戴耀廷

RTHK : [戴耀廷] 表示，基本法沒有指出人大釋法有否追溯力，內地法例亦訂明修改法律並沒有追溯力，按此並不影響議員已作出的行為，因此先應讓他們重新宣誓，若議員再作出有關行為才予以處理。

...

他是否知道，或是故意亂講？這一刻法庭未曾作出任何裁決，因此根本不存在追溯力這個問題。已有人提出司法覆核，或有人將會提出司法覆核，屆時法庭必須採用人大有關解釋。但法庭審訊需時是另一個問題，屆時有關人士已在立法會內投了很多次票。

。。。

hong kong independence?

it started off when the duo insulted you and your ancestors and martyrs etc.

according to a survey conducted by HKU, only 17% of hk people want independence, of whom i am not one.  it's not a matter of whether one likes the CCP, but when it comes to breaking up my motherland,  the majority of hk people won't agree to it.  

if the UK wants to break up UK, it's none of my business.

釋法 vs 樓市辣招

釋法換來樓市辣招，重手對(冲)重手。

(相比之下，胡官決定參選特首以來，一項政策都沒有提過。)

雷動計劃

梁游多得「雷動計劃」護送他們進入立法會，亦多得反建制派議員在混亂中推送他們進入會議廳。不知現時反建制派，尤其是「雷動計劃」負責人有何感想呢?

凡事物極必反。

此外，一些傳聞指梁游是卧底奸細，其實這些傳聞意義不大。因為假如屬實，難道這兩位便是英雄? 兩位真的有犧牲精神? 為了愛共產黨? 或是他們收了錢而現時卻要面對坐牢及一生各種坎坷境況? 不是收了錢，不是為愛黨，那麽為何要駡國人及祖宗? 為何反建制派及「雷動計劃」一直予以協助? 簡言之，責無旁貸。

。。。

人大釋法

全國人大常委會就基本法第104條進行釋法。似乎人大常委會亦會為國家安全有關事宜作出闡釋/决定。根據基本法，既然特區行政、立法和司法機關均已按基本法第104條宣誓，因此有關闡釋/決定特區行政、立法和司法機關都必須遵守。

。。。

Basic Law Article 48

According to BL48, the CE shall exercise the following powers and functions: ... to be responsible for the implementation of the Basic Law and other laws which, in accordance with the Basic Law, apply in the HKSAR.

I would have thought that the CE is thus responsible for implementing BL104 and is therefore qualified to be one of the parties to the court hearing, and more importantly, to be the authority to declare that the duo failed to comply with BL104 as well as the ODO. If so, the onus falls on the duo to JR the Government and it will save the following embarrassing questions from Jat representing the LegCo President. We shall see how this saga unfolds.

... ... ...

[Jat] said the government’s argument is based on the assumption that Section 21 can be triggered automatically.

However, Jat said, the government then contradicted its position by first maintaining that the court is the final adjudicator on whether Section 21 of the ODO should be invoked, and later argued that Leung is obliged to declare that Yau and Leung were no longer entitled to retake their oath in accordance with Section 21.

He said the government’s logic was “rather odd.”

The correct view, he said, is that Section 21 of the ODO cannot be triggered automatically, which would have allowed the Legislative Council Secretariat to disqualify lawmakers without the president’s authorisation.

Further, Jat said, there is no legal obligation imposed on the president stating that he must invoke the section; it remains a matter of discretion.

。。。

行政長官宣誓

法官問，根據基本法104條，若有人對行政長官宣誓提出訴訟，如何處理。

早前陳佐洱引述已故的魯平指，基本法第二章將「國家行為」涵蓋為「國防、外交等」，當中的「等」字，代表了香港擁有的行政權、立法權、獨立的司法權和終審權，都是中央授予的，是中央應有的權力。

根據基本法第19條，香港特別行政區法院對國防、外交等國家行為無管轄權。香港特別行政區法院在審理案件中遇有涉及國防、外交等國家行為的事實問題，應取得行政長官就該等問題發出的證明文件，上述文件對法院有約束力。行政長官在發出證明文件前，須取得中央人民政府的證明書。

換言之，中央監誓是國家行為，除非中央事後也認為當時監誓出錯，否則就特區法院而言，中央已接受行政長官的宣誓是毋庸置疑的。

Interpretation by the SCNPC

My post to HK Free Press:

When it comes to politics, like it or not, it is a fact that many people in Hong Kong don’t trust the court anymore.

Retired judge Woo Kwok-hing, when announcing his decision to run for the top post, said that among the three powers, the judiciary is the most powerful.  This hardly sits well with the executive-led constitutional arrangement as enshrined in the Basic Law. #

In its first interpretation of the Basic Law, the SCNPC stated that “Those relevant provisions concern affairs which are the responsibility of the Central People’s Government and concern the relationship between the Central Authorities and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.  Before making its judgment, the Court of Final Appeal had not sought an interpretation of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress in compliance with the requirement of Article 158(3) of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.  Moreover, the interpretation of the Court of Final Appeal is not consistent with the legislative intent.”

Since then, perhaps many judges (including Woo Kwok-hing) may have formed the view that the judiciary has the greatest power.  So much about mutual trust.

#  I won’t repeat the many views already expressed on the executive-led system.  Suffice to supplement a few points below:

(a) BL12: “The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be a local administrative region of the People’s Republic of China, which shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy and come directly under the Central People’s Government.”

Note that unlike other provinces in China where the provincial people’s congresses elect the governments and courts etc to which they are responsible and report their work, and by which they are supervised, the HKSAR comes directly under the CPG.  And according to BL43, CE shall be the head of the HKSAR, shall represent the Region and be accountable to the CPG and the HKSAR.  According to BL48(8), he/she shall implement the directives issued by the CPG in respect of the relevant matters provided for in the Basic Law.

While CE may directly dissolve LegCo according to BL50, LegCo may pass a motion of impeachment by a two-thirds majority of all its members and report it to the CPG for decision according to BL73.

It is clear that both the CE and HKSAR come directly under the CPG, the executive arm of government.

(b) In its decision of 26 April 2004, the SCNPC said: “When the set-up is such that half of the members are returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections and half of the members are returned by functional constituencies, the impact on the operation of the Hong Kong society as a whole, especially the impact on the executive-led system, remains to be examined through practice.”

The term “executive-led system” was mentioned.

Two more points:

(a) While the CFA has the power of final adjudication, it has to follow the interpretation of the SCNPC, which is a standing committee of the NPC, the highest organ of state power in China.  Note that the NPC has the power of interpretation, but it is for the court to adjudicate cases.

(b) BL19(3): “The courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall have no jurisdiction over acts of state such as defence and foreign affairs. The courts of the Region shall obtain a certificate from the Chief Executive on questions of fact concerning acts of state such as defence and foreign affairs whenever such questions arise in the adjudication of cases.  This certificate shall be binding on the courts.  Before issuing such a certificate, the Chief Executive shall obtain a certifying document from the Central People’s Government.”

Note the words “such as”.  In the Chinese text, the word is “etc”.

…

人大釋法

早前我預計，差不多肯定必須人大釋法。如今據悉後天全國人大常委會將會釋法，我覺得今次釋法可能會比較重手。嘗試分析局勢如下：

(1) 習大大已貴為核心，地位穩如泰山。

(2) 美國大選在即，無暇搞局；TPP未必成事。

(3) 南海相對穩定下來，短期內不用費神。

(4) 南韓面對政治醜聞，自身難保；薩德系統或有變數。

(5) 國民黨來訪並重申九二共識，而內地早前亦運用了經濟手段，台獨沒有發展空間。

(6) 反國教、佔中佔旺、趕內地客、旺角鳩嗚、旺角暴亂、港獨、自決以至宣誓惡行，成事不足，反而團結了愛國愛港人士；宣誓惡行更激怒了全球華人，甚至有不少港人要求人大主動釋法。

(7) 胡官參選，稱司法權最大，漠視行政主導之憲政架構。

(8) 陳佐洱有關已故魯平之說，令人想起回歸後不久有關居留權的案件，當時終審法院認為，它有司法管轄權去審查人大或其常委會的立法行為是否符合基本法，令全城嘩然。回想自那時起，可能很多法官(包括胡官)均以為香港特區司法權獨大，情況令中央憂心。

今次釋法內容如何，拭目以待。可能包括：必須嚴肅宣誓、排除港獨或自決等等。屆時市民可能以釋法為據，對某些已就任的議員提出司法覆核。

。。。

中梵建交

有關中梵建交的進展。

在現世中，當不少國家 / 社會都在面對分裂時，懂得有原則地作出妥協 (例如"袋住先") 都會被辱罵。似乎現世中只有你死我活，而沒有共存空間。當所有事情都上綱上線，變為"原教主義"式信條時，便會引發內戰、恐怖襲擊及戰爭。

若天主教會真的明白和平共存比"聖戰" 更合乎公義，有理有節地向中國政府商討一個雙方都可以接受的方案，對世界來說是一個啟示。

中梵建交，好像走一國兩制模式。

司法獨大?

RTHK : "陳佐洱又引述已故的魯平指，基本法第二章將「國家行為」涵蓋為「國防、外交等」，當中的「等」字，代表了香港擁有的行政權、立法權、獨立的司法權和終審權，都是中央授予的，是中央應有的權力。"

*** 上述報道令我想起回歸後不久有關居留權的案件，當時終審法院認為，它有司法管轄權去審查人大或其常委會的立法行為是否符合基本法，令全城嘩然。回想自那時起，可能很多法官(包括胡官)均以為香港特區司法權獨大。根據基本法第19條，很明顯終審法院並沒有這方面的權力。況且全國人大是最高國家權力機關。***

律政司司長於1999年3月5日在立法會內務委員會會議發言："有言論關注到判詞內容談及終審庭、全國人民代表大會和全國人民代表大會常務委員會的關係之處。 終審庭說特區法院有司法管轄權去審查人大或其常委會的立法行為是否符合基本法﹐ 如果不符合的話便宣告它們無效。 有些評論者, 北京和本地的, 都認為這個講法的意思是把終審庭置於人大之上﹐ 而它給自己權力去審查和監督人大的每一立法行為。"

基本法第19條：香港特別行政區法院對國防、外交等國家行為無管轄權。香港特別行政區法院在審理案件中遇有涉及國防、外交等國家行為的事實問題，應取得行政長官就該等問題發出的證明文件，上述文件對法院有約束力。行政長官在發出證明文件前，須取得中央人民政府的證明書。

http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/199903/05/0305133.htm

。。。

基本法 - 所謂三權分立

在英國，最高權力架構是國會 (parliamentary supremacy) 。在中國，最高權力架構是人大。在美國，是三權分立。在香港，是行政主導。

上述是有關憲制安排的表述。每人都應遵守法律，但並不代表"基本法指香港三個權力中心組成，司法權力最大"(胡官的說法)。他亦有說，法官是終身制的，所以司法權力最大。我不理解為何終身制便可稱為權力最大。

人大解釋全國性法律包括基本法(基本法是全國性法律，全國須遵守)，但這涉及解釋，並不涉及司法，因為案件仍須交由法院審判。因此人大釋法並不等於司法權最大。

若是他說每人都須遵守法律，無人會有異議。但他在評論香港政制三權中誰最大，便涉及憲制秩序及權力分配問題，涉及多年來基本法研究等等。簡言之，從來没有他這個說法。

事實上，香港的制度很獨特。根據基本法第12條，香港特別行政區是中華人民共和國的一個享有高度自治權的地方行政區域，直轄於中央人民政府。須注意：(1)直轄於中央人民政府，(2)地方行政區域。

我相信中央應該不會樂意見到這有關基本法權力配置的新的說法，尤其是行政長官參選人這個說法，只會添煩添亂。

基本法 - 行政主導

每個人各自表述，很難說誰對誰錯，除非違反了邏輯或與事實不符或任意套上因果關係等等。此外，須彼此認同討論的 frame of reference，例如：憲法、基本法。

由於法庭是最終仲裁者，因此胡官便說法庭最大權，這樣說法沒有多大討論意義，因為根本沒有需要討論。事實上，在司法方面，最大權是終審法院首席法官；行政方面，最大權是行政長官；而立法方面，最大權是立法會主席。須注意上述已用了三個 frame of reference，因此各自表述亦無妨。

但作為行政長官參選人，在基本法憲政框架(frame of reference)下回答提問而給予這樣的答案(司法最大)，我認為是添煩添亂。

註：全國人大常委會於2004年4月26日的決定提及"行政主導體制"。

行政主導

近日坊間和學者對「行政主導」已有很多論述，在此不贅。我只想帶出以下幾個要點：

(1) 根據基本法第12條，香港特別行政區是中華人民共和國的一個享有高度自治權的地方行政區域，直轄於中央人民政府。

已故基本法專家蕭蔚雲說，香港特區 "不同於內地的省、自治區、直轄市，不實行人民代表大會制，內地的地方政府、法院、檢察院都由地方人民代表大會選舉產生，對它負責並接受它的監督，香港的情況不同，由於實行"一國兩制"方針，它實行行政主導的體制。"

有別於內地一般設置，香港特區是直轄於中央人民政府的一個地方行政區域。

行政長官作為特區首長，通過選舉或協商產生，由中央人民政府任命並對中央人民政府和特區負責。

在有需要時，行政長官須執行中央人民政府就基本法規定的有關事務發出的指令。

*** 很明顯，香港特區以至行政長官均逮屬中央人民政府的行政架構。***

(2) 行政長官如拒絕簽署立法會再次通過的法案或立法會拒絕通過政府提出的財政預算案或其他重要法案，經協商仍不能取得一致意見，行政長官可解散立法會。

另一方面，若立法會以全體議員三分之二多數通過彈劾行政長官，則須報請中央人民政府決定。

(3) 全國人大常委會於2004年4月26日的決定提及"行政主導體制"。

…

香港特別行政區排名名單

胡國興稱基本法指香港三個權力中心組成，司法權力最大！第一次聽這樣說。難道美國最高法院比總統的權力更大?

請參閱香港特別行政區排名名單：

1. 行政長官
2. 終審法院首席法官
3. 香港特別行政區前任行政長官
4. 政務司司長
5. 財政司司長
6. 律政司司長
7. 立法會主席

http://www.protocol.gov.hk/images/eng/precedence/prelist.pdf

基本法第48(2)條

根據基本法第48(2)條，行政長官負責執行本法和依照本法適用於香港特別行政區的其他法律，即包括宣誓及聲明條例。

按此，我認為亦包括執行基本法第104條 (即"香港立法會議員在就職時必須依法宣誓擁護中華人民共和國香港特別行政區基本法，效忠中華人民共和國香港特別行政區")。

換句話說，就第104條而言，行政長官(而非律政司)具執法權力，因此行政長官作為控方是合法合憲的。

理論上，我認為行政長官本身可以宣布他們未按有關規定作出宣誓，並宣布其議席懸空。屆時提出司法覆核的將會是他們。當然，現時做法較為穩妥。

由於這是一個「信納」概念，有別於純「事實」概念，例如由選舉主任，甚至是否由立法會秘書長，以及立法會主席等等，去決定甚麼參選或就任資格等等，因此理論上行政長官亦然。儘管如此，當然由法庭裁決是最穩妥的方法。

何謂真誠地宣誓

有關宣誓是否真誠這個問題，不同人有不同解讀，市民大眾或一般人(reasonable man)會覺得劉小麗當日沒有真誠地宣誓，她自己在帖文也間接承認了。但不要緊，各人有各人看法。如今有市民告上法庭，最好由法官重看她當天的宣誓，法官或至終審法院必會有個決定，而我相信最容易理解的是，假若有人在法庭上這樣宣誓都能過關，或假如美國總統在就職宣誓時竟然也可以這樣玩法，文明社會便會變回非理性的蠻荒世界了。所以，何謂真誠? 對，很多時候的確存在著灰色地帶。但玩得太盡時卻又顯得黑白分明了。

菲律賓總統

菲律賓總統臨上飛機去日本前，形容美國當菲律賓是一隻狗，繫上狗繩的狗。他的謀略應該是(1)告訴日本，不要勸他重回美國懷抱，更重要是告訴(2)菲律賓的反對派及軍隊不要作反。因為謀叛變者等同自認是狗。

news: "Duterte said he was against the presence of any foreign troops in his country and the United States could "forget" an Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) with the Philippines, if he stayed longer, without elaborating.

The United States, he said, should not treat the Philippines "like a dog with a leash", adding to confusion about the future the longtime allies' ties."

鼓吹港獨/自決

在佔中時鼓吹公民抗命，認為這是法治的一部分，其實已經干犯了煽動意圖罪。

鼓吹港獨/自決亦然。

何謂鼓吹自決? 例如：有自決(A)：包括所有選項、自決(B)：包括所有「非法」選項，及自決(C)：包括所有「合法」選項，即(A) = (B) + (C)。

鼓吹"自決"(C)應該沒有問題，除了自決二字比較敏感。但鼓吹自决(A)或自決(B)應該會干犯煽動意圖罪。

鼓吹自決(B)比較明顯。其實鼓吹自決(A)亦然，因為鼓吹自決(A)包括鼓吹自決(B)，即所有「非法」選項 ... 及其他合法選項。後者(其他合法選項)並不重要，重要是包括了鼓吹港獨。

當然，鼓吹者未必會承認鼓吹，他們可能會說「只係問吓啫」。那麽，若有人被感染而付諸行動並被告上法庭，難道前者没有道德及法律責任? 相信有關當局會從各方面蒐證。

[read together with Cap 1, Schedule 8 - CONSTRUCTION ON AND AFTER 1 JULY 1997 OF WORDS AND EXPRESSIONS IN LAWS PREVIOUSLY IN FORCE]

Cap 200, section 9 :

(1) A seditious intention is an intention-
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the person of Her Majesty, or Her Heirs or Successors, or against the Government of Hong Kong, or the government of any other part of Her Majesty's dominions or of any territory under Her Majesty's protection as by law established;
(b) to excite Her Majesty's subjects or inhabitants of Hong Kong to attempt to procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any other matter in Hong Kong as by law established; or
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Hong Kong; or
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst Her Majesty's subjects or inhabitants of Hong Kong; or
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and enmity between different classes of the population of Hong Kong; or
(f) to incite persons to violence; or (Added 30 of 1970 s. 2)
(g) to counsel disobedience to law or to any lawful order. (Added 30 of 1970 s. 2)

Cap 1, Schedule 8 :

Any reference in any provision to Her Majesty, the Crown, the British Government or the Secretary of State (or to similar names, terms or expressions) where the content of the provision-
(a) relates to title to land in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region;
(b) involves affairs for which the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China has responsibility;
(c) involves the relationship between the Central Authorities and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region,
shall be construed as a reference to the Central People's Government or other competent authorities of the People's Republic of China. ...