2012年12月16日星期日

「打茅波」釋法

無可否認, 律政司司長借外傭案向終審法院提請人大釋法,確實在「打茅波」,申請缺乏法理依據,很多人面對社會資源因終院的裁決所帶來的衝擊及影響,而寧願放棄具法理依據的處理方法,只求解決問題, by hook or by crook。

叫終院推翻莊豐源案的裁決, 談何容易, 莊案的判決距今才10年,期間涉及居權的法律看法並無顯著的改變,終院一則沒有推翻莊案的理據,再者外傭案也並非屬人大釋法的類別,律政司司長只是把這燙手山芋交給法院,在管治風雨飄搖的時候,擾亂視聽,推卸責任。

以前有讀者留言罵過標少,認為標少認同法院的看法,不管香港市民的死活,我不得不申辯一下。自吳嘉玲的居權案開始,如果終院接納政府的觀點,極其量被指看法保守,不致於造成提請人大釋法的終結。問題就出在終院受liberal minded的人所把持, 才產生這些漠視對社會衝擊的裁決,如果判決並非liberal minded,,就不會有雙非湧來產子的問題,一旦終院作出裁決,下級法院只能依從,故此標少贊同下級法院法官的判決,卻評擊liberal minded的看法,不同意終院開明的判決,但卻要捍衛他們體現法治的判決權力。

有人認為,律政司司長這次的做法,就是包致金所指的暴風雨來臨,我不認同這看法。如果提請人大釋法就是暴風雨來臨,那麼暴風雨在十年間已來過幾次。在我看,包大人所講的暴風雨,是指因他不獲延任,消除了對終院裁決的影響力,才講出這番危言聳聽的話,他覺得自己可以呼風喚雨。

我覺得最佳處理辦法是修改基本法,可是,人大不肯承認基本法在立法方面有問題,他們覺得一切問題出在法官不諳國情。各不相讓,惟有拉倒, 最終話事權卻握在人大手裡。終院覺得外行領導內行,這口氣噎不下,奈何!這種根本性的矛盾, 是一國兩制也避不了結構上的矛盾,就像香港立法會褫奪了法院的釋法權,在香港一向奉行的法律觀念中,這做法法官難以接受,也極不願意接受。我真的看不到律政司司長這次申請成功的可能性。

也不要以為染紅保皇的人就一定支持政府的做法,不是有覬覦律政司司長一職又當不成的人出來打秋風嗎?

2 則留言:

  1. 小弟只是一名仍未畢業的法學生,成績也不是特別突出,實在不敢在標少面前班門弄斧,不過我也想分享自己的看法。

    記得小弟去年讀constitutional law時曾經花過不少時間去細讀Ng Ka Ling和Chong Fung Yuen這兩大居留權案,我並不認為終院的判決特別liberal,反而是很自然不過的判決。事實上我個人認為基本法第24條的條文並不含糊,字面上的確能盛載applicants所argue的意思,而這種理解條文的方式也符合"purposive approach"的規限,不至於過份斟酌字義以致偏離合理的理解方法。以吳案為例,24(2)(3)規定「第(1)、(2)兩項所列居民在香港以外所生的中國籍子女」是香港永久性居民,不論婚生/非婚生、成年/未成年子女,也是子女,如果說強行搬出所謂「立法原意」去扭曲字義是不合理的。又如果像政府或人大常委會的理解,22(4)所指「中國其他地區的人」可以包括符合24(2)定義下的香港永久性居民的話,香港拿著回鄉卡進入內地後中國政府也可以限制我們返回香港,有違24(3)對香港永久性居民賦予居留權的purpose。又以莊案為例,24(2)(1)規定「在香港特別行政區成立以前或以後在香港出生的中國公民」是香港永久性居民,而雙非嬰兒因為血源關係是中國公民,他們又是在香港特別行政區成立後在香港出生,他們能擁有居留權是個符合邏輯的推論,毫無懸念。如果當時與莊案一併判決的Tam Nga Yin案中,終院裁定港人在內地領養的兒童也是他們「所生」的話,我才會認為終院過份liberal,但顯然終院在談案中很自制,並沒有把字面不能盛載的意思讀入條文之中。

    SL

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. SL,

      Thank you for reading and responding. Don't ever be afraid to teach me how to suck egg. I am only a country bumpkin who is not afraid to express shallow views because of the thickness of skin never makes me blush. It is always good to share your view with me.

      There is no yardstick to measure what is liberal view. It is always a comparative concept when a more conservative stance is placed before us. From another perspective, normally people will consider a pro-government view conservative and its counterpart liberal. When we interpret the meaning of the legislation, we do not restrict ourselves to the literal meaning of the wordings. From time to time we can see the court does not take the superficial meaning of the legislation when it thinks that it can result in absurd and aberrant situations. In Section 19, Cap 1, it says, "An Ordinance shall be deemed to be remedial and shall receive such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as will best ensure the attainment of the object of the Ordinance according to its true intent, meaning and spirit." We can see the general principles of interpretation are stipulated in the statue. There are several words we have to look at, "remedial", "fair, large and liberal construction" and "true intent, meaning and spirit". Even if the wordings are unambiguous, the court should not restrict itself to the literal meaning of the words. Of course, given my limited knowledge of the law, I cannot elaborate in depth what S.19 means. You can find the elaboration in appeal judgements. I just want to point out, some of the judges being branded "liberal minded", it only means they are prone to rule against the government instead of bearing the true sense of liberal interpretation of the law.

      There is no formula or scientific induction to give an absolute value to the interpretation. How to interpret the meaning of the law can never be absolutely right or wrong. If CFA judges give a completely opposite interpretation to the precedent cases like Ng Ka Ling or Chong Fung Yuen, there are umpteen cogent reasons to do so. That is why I am always sceptical and do not easily mimic what they say.

      Bill

      刪除