论文部分内容阅读
2006年立法会通过《截取通讯及监察条例》后,议员梁国雄向香港高等法院提出司法复核,指控立法会《议事规则》第57(6)条违反基本法。从法律解释的方法来看,《议事规则》第57(6)条不抵触基本法,而且还切合《基本法》第74条的立法目的,符合基本法关于政制体制的设计原则和精神。香港法院受理并裁决梁国雄司法复核案,尽管符合法治精神,但司法介入立法机关内部事务的方式未必是最妥当的。法院对涉及十分政治化的宪法复核的案件应当保持“司法克制”或者“司法自律”。法院在程序上对该起司法复核案作出本案不属于法院管辖予以驳回是较好的处理方式,否则可能会导致带来的问题比解决的问题还要多。
After the Legislative Council passed the Interception of Communications and Surveillance Ordinance in 2006, Member of the Legislative Council, Mr Leung Kwok-hung, submitted a judicial review to the High Court of Hong Kong alleging that Rule 57 (6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council contravenes the Basic Law. From the point of view of legal interpretation, Article 57 (6) of the Rules of Procedure does not contravene the Basic Law and also meets the legislative purpose of Article 74 of the Basic Law, which is consistent with the design principles and spirit of the Constitutional Law on constitutional government. The Hong Kong court accepts and ruled that Leung Kwok-hung’s judicial review is not necessarily the most appropriate way for the judiciary to intervene in the internal affairs of the legislature despite the spirit of the rule of law. The court should maintain “judicial restraint” or “judicial self-regulation” in cases involving the review of the highly politicized constitution. It is a better procedure for the court to procedurally review the judicial review not in the jurisdiction of the court, otherwise it may result in more questions than the resolution of the issue.