三權分立

香港同胞好辯論, 辯才厲害, 十分可愛。有云真理越辯越明, 有時也難免越辯越矇, 甚至越辯越懵, 「三權分立」就是一例。首先「三權分立」是不是英文的separation of powers? 因為有所謂第4權 (4th Estate) (傳媒) 及第5權(5th Estate) (非主流媒體如博客、自由撰稿人等)。除了搞清楚「權」的數量外, 又要介定甚麼叫「分立」。如果不搞清楚命題, 討論就會又矇又懵了。再引申出來的討論就變成爭論。標少年紀與日俱增, 不自量力叫標少, 實為標老, 老懵懂了, 就不敢與人爭論, 真理實在太沉重,  把人壓得透不過氣來。

在上一篇的留言, 順應潮流, 抝起究竟香港是否三權分立來。《基本法》又是否沒明言但卻寫出三權各司其職互相制衡的呢? 如不先作介定, 這命題就會像花貓追逐自己的尾巴, 捨本逐末, 不亦樂乎。既然如此, 讓我借終審法院案例, 從司法的角度來定音。

在劉昌及另一人 對 香港特別行政區 (FACC 6/2001)一案, 終審法院在該案第101段有此表述(中譯本)

101. 《基本法》確立了行政、立法及司法必須三權分立的原則。立法機構在憲法層面上有權透過法例訂明何種行為構成刑事罪行以及被法庭裁定有罪者應受何懲罰：見案例R v Hinds [1977] AC 195第225頁G至第226頁D。不過，法庭在行使其獨立司法權時，有責任決定立法機構所制訂的法例是否符合《基本法》及《人權法案》。假如所得結論是否定的話，法庭便有責任裁定有關法例無效：見案例Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration (1999) 2 HKCFAR 4第25頁G至I。

判詞原文如下:

101. The Basic Law enshrines the principle that there must be a separation of powers as between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The legislature is constitutionally entitled to prescribe by legislation what conduct should constitute criminal offences and what punishment those found guilty by the courts should suffer: R v Hinds [1977] AC 195 at 225G-226D. But in the exercise of their independent judicial power, the courts have the duty to decide whether legislation enacted is consistent with the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights. If found to be inconsistent, the duty of the courts is to hold that legislation invalid : Ng Ka Ling v Direction of Immigration (1999) 2 HKCFAR 4 at 25G-I.

本案是回歸初期對三權分立的闡述, 其他各級法院的案例多不勝數。這看法一脈相承, 終審法院首席法官馬道立在2014年1月13日, 法律年開啓典禮的演詞也重複這講法:

......《基本法》清楚訂明立法、行政、司法機關三權分立的原則，並以頗為明確的字眼界定三者的不同角色。就司法機構而言，其憲制角色所涉的範圍是司法權力的行使，即依據法律審理訴諸法院的糾紛。

......

(...The Basic Law sets out clearly the principle of the separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, and in quite specific terms, the different roles of the three institutions. So far as the Judiciary is concerned, the ambit of its constitutional role is the exercise of judicial power, that is, the adjudication of disputes that come before the courts in accordance with the law.

...)(original speech).

至於行政及立法兩方面怎樣看待三權的互相配合和制衡, 是否稱之為「分立」is a rhetorical question which can afford different renditions. 我不會加入爭論的。