拉布filibustering與剪布curtailing debate

余若薇：法庭無裁定主席有權剪布

【明報專訊】資深大律師兼立法會議員余若薇認為，法庭並無裁定曾鈺成有「剪布」權，只是基於三權分立原則，及認為梁國雄的憲法權利無被侵犯，故法庭決定不受理本案；故她不擔心案件會成為立法會主席有權「剪布」的先例。梁國雄則表示，仍未決定會否上訴。

指法庭尊重立會自主 不易介入

對於法官林文瀚的裁決理由，余若薇認為其法律依據可以理解，裁決亦顯示法律不一定可以處理所有問題。余解釋，三權分立是本港既有原則，法庭尊重立法會的自主權，不會輕易介入其運作。

長毛不認同裁決 未定會否上訴

余續說，判辭清晰表明，拉布不是議員的憲法權利，議員無權無限發言，故今次主席裁決無侵犯議員憲法權利，法官才裁定法庭不應介入。余又指出，裁決提到法案只是草議階段，亦提醒主席的裁決自有其政治後果。余強調，絕對不認同曾鈺成根據議事規則有「剪布」權，但法庭對此議題並無作出裁決。 (26/5/2012明報節錄)

余若薇是資深大律師 ，她認為林文瀚法官在判辭中沒有對立法會主席的「剪布」權作出裁決，這樣講算是事實，但不是事實的全部，有權無權，要看你怎樣闡釋判辭中字裏行間的含義。倒不如讓我摘錄判辭中相關幾段，大家各自演繹一下。

54. There are provisions in the Rules which show it is not intended that the business of the Legislative Council should be thwarted by irrelevant and repetitious speeches or vexatious debates: Rules 36(5), 38 and 41(1), 45(1), 57(4). Given human ingenuity, written rules cannot deal with all the eventualities. History elsewhere demonstrates that measures like closure orders in the Parliament of the United Kingdom were adopted to meet such crisis before the making of any standing orders to such effect[1]. Of course, there are differences in the political landscape and circumstances in different jurisdictions. Historical developments elsewhere may not be applicable in Hong Kong.

55. As far as Hong Kong is concerned, in the context of our Basic Law, I do not see any room for suggesting that there is a constitutional right to filibuster. In the exercise of his authority to preside over meeting under Article 72, the President has a constitutional duty to ensure that proper conduct of business in the Legislative Council is not derailed. How such duty is to be performed, how the power of the President is to be exercised and the relationship between the President and the members as a whole (balancing the interests of different political Parties in the Legislative Council) are matters of politics.

56. The existence of powers to deal with irrelevant, repetitious or vexatious debates demonstrates that the right of a legislator to speak in meetings is not unchecked and therefore it is not possible to contend for an absolute constitutional right to speak. It also demonstrates that rulings by the President (or a chairman) often have the effect of regulating the right to speak in meetings. It needs hardly be said that proceedings in the legislature would come to halt if every decision having the effect of curbing or regulating a legislator’s right to speak is liable to be challenged in court on the ground that it curtails the immediate constitutional right of a legislator under Articles 73 or 75(2). Mr Lee’s constitutional argument cannot be right.

57. In light of my above conclusion on the proper interpretation of Articles 73(1) and 75, I do not think the rules cited by Mr Lee can give rise to a constitutional right to filibuster.

58. As regards the proper interpretation of Rules 34(6), 38 and 92, it follows from the principle of parliamentary privilege that these are matters for the Legislative Council and the President in the exercise of his authority under Article 72.
(Leung Kwok Hung and The President of the Legislative Council Of The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region HCAL 64/2012)

我的看法是，林官認為立法會主席有權確保立法會進行的事宜不會越軌(derailed)，對議員離題、重複及無理取鬧的發言有權加以限制。主席怎樣行使權力及履行責任，是主席與議員之間，顧及各黨派整體利益的政治決定。林官的講法，不就是主席有權「剪布」嗎？