眾新聞 Logo
眾新聞 CitizenNews
眾說

法政匯思就全國人大常委會決定取消議員資格的聲明


(please scroll for English version)

1) 2020年11月11日,全國人民代表大會常務委員會(簡稱「人大常委會」)作出決定,以取消危害國家安全的香港立法會議員的議員資格(簡稱「該決定」)。特區政府隨後宣佈將四名民主派議員逐出立法會。

2) 該決定指: 
a. 香港特別行政區立法會議員,因宣揚或者支持「港獨」主張、拒絕承認國家對香港擁有並行使主權、尋求外國或者境外勢力干預香港特別行政區事務,或者具有其他危害國家安全等行為,不符合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的法定要求和條件,一經依法認定,即時喪失立法會議員的資格。

b. 該決定適用於在原定於2020年9月6日舉行的香港特別行政區第七屆立法會選舉提名期間,因上述情形被香港特別行政區依法裁定提名無效的第六屆立法會議員。
今後參選或者出任立法會議員的,如遇有上述情形,均適用該決定。

c. 依據上述規定喪失立法會議員資格的人士,由香港特別行政區政府宣布。

3) 該決定公佈後不久,特區政府宣佈四名民主派立法會議員,即楊岳橋、郭榮鏗、郭家麒及梁繼昌先生,立即喪失其議員的資格。其所謂的根據是,該四名立法會議員已經在原定於2020年9月6日舉行的第七屆立法會選舉提名期間,被選舉主任裁定提名無效。

4) 該決定和禠奪議員資格的做法,對法制最少造成以下深遠的影響:
a. 該決定欠缺憲制基礎。人大常委會聲稱只需由它作出一項「決定」,就可實際上立法規管香港本地事務,而且不受任何約束,不需問責,毋須理會法律確定性的原則,對《基本法》和《中英聯合聲明》確立的「一國兩制」制度視若無睹,更可超越《基本法》條文中清晰列明的憲法限制 [1]

b. 該決定可隨便剝奪任何司法濟助。四名被禠奪資格的議員無法提出選舉呈請,從而挑戰選舉主任裁定提名無效的決定,皆因選舉呈請的前提是選舉必須已進行,但特區政府先前引用緊急法將立法會選舉押後至少一年。實質上,人大常委會該決定不但剝奪了四名議員的政治權利,亦同時剝奪了他們從法院獲得濟助的權利。

c. 該決定對往後選舉的影響無從得知。縱使《基本法》沒有終身剝奪參選權的機制,基於該決定,四名議員亦可能將永遠無法再參與立法會選舉。

5) 在該決定後舉行的記者招待會中,行政長官(「特首」)聲稱「人大常委會的法律決定多年來已經在法庭認定對於特區來說是具有法律約束力」[2],實為誤導。 在2018年12月有關一地兩檢安排的司法覆核案件 (HCAL 1160/2018) 中,高等法院的確有考慮人大常委會決定於本港的法律效力,但指出此等事宜影響深遠,並明確指出不就人大常委會決定的法律地位或效力作任何判決,留待將來法院再作考慮(第61段)。

6) 法政匯思對該決定深感遺憾。令人痛惜的是,《基本法》的原則及其所保障的基本權利正被急劇侵蝕,香港人被迫目睹「高度自治」的承諾淪為空談。儘管政治環境令人失望,法政匯思呼籲市民堅守對法治原則的追求,那怕這些原則日復一日地受到衝擊。該決定繞過《基本法》及香港政府的行徑是對法治又一衝擊,但是與此同時,這正是我們擇善固執的又一原因。

法政匯思
2020年11月14日
[1]:根據《基本法》第79條,立法會議員只在特定情況下才會喪失資格。
[2]:行政長官會見傳媒答問內容:「我們今日正正就是在《基本法》實施過程中又遇到一個憲制性問題,全國人大常委會是依法幫我們處理,而它的法律決定多年來已經在法庭認定對於特區來說是具有法律約束力,是有堅實的基礎,是立足明確,亦是不容挑戰的。」 

11月11日,林鄭月娥在記者會上宣布依據人大常委會決定,取消4名立法會議員資格。美聯社

【Statement of the Progressive Lawyers Group on the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress To Disqualify Legislators】

1) On 11 November 2020, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (“NPCSC”) issued a decision that members of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council (“LegCo”) who endanger national security shall be disqualified as lawmakers (the “Decision”). Shortly thereafter, the HKSAR Government announced the expulsion of four pro-democracy legislators from LegCo.

2) The Decision states that [1]:
(a) Members of LegCo shall be ineligible to hold seats in LegCo once they are determined by law to have advocated for or supported the independence of Hong Kong; refused to recognise China’s exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong; solicited foreign interference in Hong Kong affairs; or engaged in other acts that jeopardise national security.

(b) The Decision is applicable to those nominees disqualified from running in the postponed LegCo elections which were originally to be held on 6 September 2020.
It also henceforth applies to persons running for, or holding, a seat in LegCo.

(c) Those disqualified from membership of LegCo by reason of the above will be announced by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

3) Shortly after the Decision was published, the HKSAR Government announced that four pro-democracy legislators, namely Alvin Yeung, Dennis Kwok, Kwok Ka-ki and Kenneth Leung were immediately disqualified. The purported basis was that these legislators’ nominations were decided to be invalid by Returning Officers (“RO”) during the nomination period of the LegCo elections originally scheduled for 6 September 2020.

4) The Decision and the pursuant disqualifications have at least the following far-reaching legal implications:
(a) There is no constitutional basis for the Decision. The NPCSC purports that it can, without restraint, accountability or legal certainty, legislate and govern the domestic affairs of Hong Kong under the name of a “decision”, disregarding the “One Country Two Systems” principle of the Basic Law and the Sino-British Joint Declaration, and contrary to clear constitutional restrictions in the provisions of the Basic Law [2];

(b) Any possible remedy from the judicial system will be circumvented arbitrarily: the ousted four lawmakers have not yet been able to file any election petition to challenge the disqualification decision made by the RO, because it is a precondition that an election is held before a challenge can be made. There has been no election as the Hong Kong government has postponed it for at least a year to 2021 under the emergency law. The Decision of the NPCSC has the effect of depriving lawmakers’ right to participate in public life and simultaneously deprived them of their right to seek remedy from the courts;

(c) The effect of the Decision on future elections is unknown, in particular whether ousted lawmakers are permanently barred from running in any LegCo elections in the future, despite the lack of constitutional basis in the Basic Law for such a permanent bar.

5) The Chief Executive (“CE”), in her press conference held after the Decision was announced, claimed that the decisions of the NPCSC have long been acknowledged by the Hong Kong courts as legally binding on Hong Kong [3]. This claim is misleading. In the judicial review concerning the co-location arrangement ruled in December 2018 (HCAL 1160/2018), the legal effect of an NPCSC decision was considered and the court acknowledged that such issue would have far reaching implications, expressly made no finding on the status and legal effect of an NPCSC decision and reserved the matter for a future court to consider (para 61).

6)  The PLG expresses profound regret over the Decision. The principles in the Basic Law and the fundamental rights guaranteed by it have, sadly, rapidly been eroded. The people of Hong Kong have helplessly witnessed the promise of “high degree of autonomy” become empty rhetoric. While the political landscape is disheartening, the PLG calls on the general public to remain faithful in their insistence on the principles of the rule of law, despite the repeated assaults to those principles. The circumvention of the Basic Law through the Decision and the Government’s actions after the Decision is yet another such assault. However, it is all the more reason for citizens to insistently pursue the rule of law.

The Progressive Lawyers Group
14 November 2020

[1]: Original Chinese text. No official English version of the Decision is currently available, and a translation from the Chinese text is used below.
[2]: See the provision for disqualification of legislators in limited specified circumstances only, set out in Article 79 of the Basic Law.
[3]: Original Chinese: 「我們今日正正就是在《基本法》實施過程中又遇到一個憲制性問題,全國人大常委會是依法幫我們處理,而它的法律決定多年來已經在法庭認定對於特區來說是具有法律約束力,是有堅實的基礎,是立足明確,亦是不容挑戰的。」


請加入成為眾新聞的月費訂戶,長期支持我們的工作。所有訂戶都可以收到我們的「每周時事」通訊 。

月費訂戶網址:hkcnews.com/aboutus/#subscribe