论文部分内容阅读
香港“郑家纯等诉立法会”案的判决涉及“香港立法会的调查委员会是否有权传召当事人”这一颇具争议的问题。针对当事人提出的“立法会调查委员会越权”的主张,在进入司法审查后,法院面对的是如何选择具体的方法来进行审查。虽然从文本来看,香港《基本法》并没有明确赋予立法会的调查委员会以传召当事人的权力,但法院采取合宪性推定方法,认为《基本法》没有禁止立法会通过调查委员会来行使证人传召权,并判决立法会的调查委员会不存在越权情形。这种对立法机关持谦抑姿态的方法论在一定程度上超越了形式文本,在本质上建基于《基本法》架构下国家不同权力间的关系维度,具有宪法上的正当性,并且对当下中国宪法方法的建构具有启示意义。当然,香港立法会调查权的行使必须以《基本法》为依据,以香港特殊的行政主导制为基础,这又从另一面体现了立法权对行政权的谦抑。
Hong Kong’s decision on “Cheng Kar-chun et al. Legislative Council” relates to the controversial issue of whether “the Legislative Council’s commission of inquiry is entitled to summon parties.” In response to the party’s claim that “Legislative Council Commission of Inquiry is overridden”, after entering the judicial review, the court is faced with how to choose a specific method to conduct the review. Although the Basic Law of Hong Kong does not explicitly give the Legislative Council Inquiry Committee the power to summon parties, the court adopts the presumption of constitutionality that the Basic Law does not prohibit the Legislative Council from passing a commission of inquiry to exercise the power of witness Summons and decides that there is no over-determination in the Legislative Council’s investigation committee. This method of holding a stance on the legislature goes beyond the formal version to a certain extent and is essentially based on the relationship dimension of the different powers of the state under the framework of the Basic Law. It is constitutionally justified, The construction of the method has enlightenment significance. Of course, the exercise of the investigative power of the Legislative Council in Hong Kong must be based on the Basic Law and on the basis of Hong Kong’s special executive-led system. This, on the other hand, reflects the humiliation of legislative power over administrative power.