立場新聞 Stand News

李飛以官威凌駕法律

2015/6/1 — 16:31

【法政匯思短評:關於李飛先生在2015年5月31日與香港立法會議員會面時發表的其中一個觀點】
THE PROGRESSIVE LAWYERS GROUP’S SHORT COMMENTARY REGARDING A VIEW EXPRESSED BY MR LI FEI DURING HIS MEETING WITH HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCILLORS ON 31 MAY 2015

2015年5月31日,部分香港立法會議員去了深圳與中央官員就政改問題舉行座談會。中央官員在該場合發表了不少意見,其中大多是一些之前我們已經發表過意見的細節問題,又或者是冗長的政治論述。就其我們不作評論。

但是,我們留意到,人大副秘書長李飛在其演說中,就人大常委的「831決定」有以下的論述: 「全國人大常委會除了具有政制發展的決定權之外,還具有基本法的解釋權。雖然決定不是解釋,但蘊含着全國人大常委會對基本法的權威理解,具有不容挑戰的法律效力。」

廣告

李先生的這句話,赤裸裸地展示了當權者怎樣以官威凌駕法律、把政治權宜等同法律。根據《基本法》、其附件、及人大常委過往按照《基本法》框架下作出的釋法:

- 在香港立法會審議政改方案前,人大常委就政改的權力局限於決定行政長官產生辦法是否需要改變。「831決定」亦依法受到同樣的限制。

- 人大常委最終就政改的決定權,是在香港立法會全體議員三分之二通過及行政長官同意政改後才適用的。換句話說,人大常委的決定權是一個終極否決權,並不是一個預設框架權。

- 人大常委行使其《基本法》釋法權前,先要徵詢基本法委員會的意見。無論在程序上或性質上,《基本法》釋法都與人大常委就行政長官產生辦法是否需要改變的權力是兩回事。

廣告

以上清楚顯示,法律上,人大常委根本就沒有權去以「831決定」為行政長官產生辦法設下框架。如果當權者真正尊重法治,是不應亦不能把人大常委在其他階段或程序下可運用的權力拿出來混淆視聽,把無權變成有權、把違法變成合法。

李先生在演說中亦提到,「我們不能做違反基本法的事情。」但願當權者能夠言行合一,而不是講一套、做一套。

法政匯思
2015年6月1日

On 31 May 2015, a number of Hong Kong Legislative Councillors went to Shenzhen to attend a meeting over political reform issues with Central Government officials. Central Government officials used the occasion to express many views, of which most are either matters of detail on which we have previously stated a view, or prolix political discourse. As such, we will not comment on any such views.

However, we note that during the speech of Mr Li Fei, the Deputy Secretary General of the National People's Congress, he made the following point in relation to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress's ("NPCSC") "August 31 Decision":

"The NPCSC, apart from having the power to decide on political system development, also has the power to interpret the Basic Law. Although the [August 31] Decision is not an interpretation, but it encapsulates NPCSC's authoritative understanding of the Basic Law, and has unchallengeable legal effect." (Our translation)

In one statement, Mr Li has nakedly displayed how those in power have used official authority override the law, and have put political expedience on equal footing with the law. According to the Basic Law, its annexures, and NPCSC's past interpretations in accordance with the Basic Law:

- Prior to the Hong Kong Legislative Council getting to consider a political reform proposal, the NPCSC's power in relation to political reform is limited to whether there is a need to change the method for selecting the Chief Executive. The August 31 Decision is subject to the same limitation.

- The NPCSC's ultimate power to make a determination on political reform is only to be used after a two-thirds majority of all Hong Kong Legislative Councillors pass, and the Chief Executive approves, the political reform package. In other words, the NPCSC's power of determination is one of ultimate veto, and not a power to pre-set a framework.

- In exercising its powers to interpret the Basic Law, the NPCSC must first consult the Basic Law Committee for its views. Both in terms of process and of nature, interpretation of the Basic Law and the NPCSC's power to decide whether the method for selecting the Chief Executive needs to change are two separate matters.

The above points demonstrate clearly that as a matter of law, the NPCSC fundamentally lacks the power to use the August 31 Decision to set a framework for the method of selecting the Chief Executive. If those in power do respect the rule of law, they should not and cannot use the NPCSC's powers at another stage or under a different set of procedures to obfuscate matters, and give power where none exists, nor make legal what is illegal.

Mr Li also said in his speech that "[w]e cannot do anything that is against the Basic Law" (our translation). We hope that those in power can act on their words, and not say one thing, but do another.

Progressive Lawyers Group
1 June 2015

(標題由編輯所擬)

發表意見