本帖最後由 felicity2010 於 2014-5-9 09:03 AM 編輯 4 q& ]5 C1 f* V6 u3 C2 Y: O
tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb- y3 r# V0 Y1 i5 c; W' M
公民提名的真相— 有關香港政改辯論的正確提問公仔箱論壇% K, E! k" T3 X# J3 P5 |7 x8 L
公仔箱論壇; V3 n( b0 a* b# a9 u2 t
【 作者：楊艾文、傅華伶 】5.39.217.76: s1 U$ E3 ~7 U) x
' b$ v1 {" }" l4 t5.39.217.76政府、香港大律師公會及香港律師會就公民提名提出了錯誤的問題。他們問是否有可能對基本法第45條進行解釋，使其能包括公民提名的機制，雖然該條文明顯將 提名的權力保留了提名委員會的提名權力。就此而言，不難明白為什麼在目前的辯論中公民提名的希望渺茫。但不要忘記，我們現在所進行的是一個法律改革及法律制定的工程，而不是單純法律解釋的工程。一個重要的限制是：我們可以修改附件一，但不能修改基本法的條文﹝註﹞。5.39.217.76, B# g5 i& A$ ]/ I; r( p' u1 d0 l
3 X) v, J( v0 S7 t/ K- m正確問題應該是：在中國法律中 — 因為基本法是中國法律 — 法律是否允許在不改變第45條的前提下，修改附件一以便包括公民提名的選項？: C6 W( n' i# O
- o& O4 A. U/ C7 q e
請記住，第45條是這樣寫關於附件一的：「行政長官產生的具體辦法由附件一《香港特別行政區行政長官的產生辦法》規定。」有人可能會問，這有什麼分別—「你不是在條文之間製造衝突嗎」？不是，因為作為法律起草者應該知道，附件一中可包含「推定條款」去確保邏輯性和法律的一致性。此推定條款可寫成這樣：「一個獲得[例如]20,000個一般選民簽名支持的合資格人士應被視為根據第45條被提名。」在表面看來，第四十五條和附件一在邏輯上，文字上和法律上 都一致。這樣的推定可能不符合第45條的立法原意，但這是另一個議題。
5 C9 z* S, g( s ] t l/ ~公仔箱論壇公仔箱論壇& e5 K& y) B6 A r5 {3 Z
試假設基本法是一條普通的香港法例。那麼，立法機關修改附件以包括公民提名的選擇就無疑是合法的了，並會被視為和第45條的規定一致。推定性的條款經常被 用來給不自然或不平常的詞語或表達的定義進行擴大。這方面最好的例子是釋義及通則條例的第7條(1)，把法律條例中所有男性的字及詞句 (例如「他」或他的)當作包括女性及不屬於男性或女性者。
8 F! U, _/ X! n8 \5 Y: utvb now,tvbnow,bttvb& t, ]2 C; Y" m+ @1 e+ g- t
律政司的2012香港法律草擬文體及實務指引指出，推定性的條文「傳統上是用於把客觀上不存在的事情當作在法律上存在，或一般來說是和這些法律上的構造有關的」。即使表面上兩條規定似乎互相矛盾，普通法的制度仍然會允許立法機關制定法律，並把解釋法律上的矛盾的工作留給法庭。
7 e2 i `$ |* x' s% Z. ]5.39.217.76
V: {( M ^& j7 r5.39.217.76那麼中國法律的角度是怎樣的？中國的法規通常不包含附件，但如果在法律中出現，附件是用來指出條文中一般規則或類別的個別情況及實例。附件的法律地位和其他條例相同。附件跟行政法規、地方性法規和規章不同（立法法第79條），說附件從屬於條文是沒有任何基礎的。立法法第85條指出頒布一個新的法律規定可能 會與另一個法律的現行規定不一致。這個情況並沒有任何不合法的成份。問題只是如何相容地解釋這兩條規定。只有在「很難確定哪一條規定有淩駕性時」才會由全國人民代表大會常務委員會裁決。在新法律內設推定性的條款可以幫助弄清哪一條規定有淩駕性。如果新法律內的推定條款指出新規定與舊規定是一致的，那麼就明 確表明，新的規定有淩駕性，並取代舊規定及任何之前對該法律的理解。推定性的條款適用於中國法例中，跟香港法律中的用法相同。; e; q" H8 M+ Y! H* I
& j5 g; j! d7 I) v, P公仔箱論壇香港大律師公會就普通法的意義和第45條對公民提名的影響發表了意見。如果香港法庭甚至全國人民代表大會常務委員現在需要解釋第45條，那麼大律師公會的 意見就會很重要。但是現在的重點是修改基本法附件一，以及全國人大常務委員會是否可以合法的批准一項修改以確立第45條和公民提名的一致性。即使有該委員 會的某些成員表態指出該修訂不大可能會被批准，修改的合法性是一個獨立的問題，而修改基本法附件一在法律上是絕對可能的。公仔箱論壇$ e5 p u1 }; X# }& d! z
說公民提名與第45條的原意不符是一回事，但如果在有行政長官和三分之二香港立法會議員支持的前題下，說人大常委會沒有法律權力批准一項推定附件一中公民提名的條款與第45條一致的修訂又是另一回事。
) v! P3 Y0 _) r: x" I: C5.39.217.76tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb0 q* o% V) D. E! y3 i/ B) B
﹝註﹞請注意，修改基本法第159條有另外的程序。
3 v+ @) H5 a1 l5 `. V
; G$ c1 S% G+ }1 G8 [8 Y% ^( 作者簡介：楊艾文教授和傅華伶教授在香港大學法律學院任教。)" U$ Y5 Z o) b- M% o0 z. D
tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb9 i5 y5 ^6 M) M* I0 J: @6 F, ~& ^
英文原文：
5 S1 R2 T( `8 |4 C$ }5.39.217.76TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。7 @' P) E7 r/ n
Truth about Civil Nominationstvb now,tvbnow,bttvb/ f N( ]& v6 Q7 O |$ a3 S
Asking the right question in Hong Kong’s political reform debate, k' q- {0 d, R9 i% w# W1 h
) i( B5 W% P7 htvb now,tvbnow,bttvbSimon NM Young and Hualing Fu
% Y" j. |) F5 n& E2 ]/ P* g
. U+ x# I+ z% V, ^TVBNOW 含有熱門話題，最新最快電視，軟體，遊戲，電影，動漫及日常生活及興趣交流等資訊。The Government, Hong Kong Bar Association,and Law Society of Hong Kong have asked the wrong question about civil nominations. They have asked whether it is possible to interpret Article 45 of the Basic Law to include the mechanism of civil nomination when the provision so plainly reserves the power of nomination to a nominating committee. Framed in this way one can see why there is little hope for civil nominations in the current debate. But do not forget that the current exercise is a law reform and law making exercise, not a purely interpretative exercise. There is one important constraint: we can amend Annex I but not the articles of the Basic Law.**Still the proper question to ask is the following: as a matter of Chinese law – because the Basic Law is a Chinese statute – is it legally permissible to amend Annex I to include the option of civil nomination, without changing Article 45? Remember that Article 45 references Annex I in this way: “The specific method for selecting the Chief Executive is prescribed in Annex I”. One might ask, what is the difference – ‘are you not also creating an internal contradiction’? Well no, because as law drafters know, it is possible to include a deeming provision in Annex I to ensure logical and legal consistency. Such a provision might look something like this: “A qualified person who obtains the signed support of 20,000 [for example] general electors shall be deemed to be nominated in accordance with Article 45.” On their face, Article 45 and Annex I would be logically, textually and legally consistent. It may not be consistent with the original purpose of Article 45, but that is a different question.公仔箱論壇6 a5 u1 p9 {' J! b$ m: m) W+ m: m
3 p; q6 L# ?4 itvb now,tvbnow,bttvbSo imagine for a second that the Basic Law was a piece of Hong Kong legislation. It would certainly be lawful for the legislature to amend the annex to include the option of civil nomination and to deem such option consistent with Article 45. Deeming provisions are frequently used to extend the definition of a word or expression in ways that may seem unnatural or unusual. The best example of this is s. 7(1) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, which deems all references in legislation to “he”or “his” to include the “feminine and neuter genders”. In the Department of Justice’s 2012 legislative drafting guide, it is said that the use of deeming clauses is “generally associated with, or traditionally used to create, legal fictions”. Even if on their face the two provisions appeared to contradict each other, the common law system still allows the legislature to enact the law but leaves it to courts to work out the contradiction by applying rules of statutory interpretation.
" E; E# s c7 P. b" k5 s
" |: O' b, m8 V% A @公仔箱論壇What is the position under Chinese law?Chinese statutes are not usually drafted with annexes but when found in legal instruments they serve to specify instances or examples of a general rule or category prescribed in the articles. Annexes have the same legal status as other articles of the same law. There is no basis to think that the annexes are subordinate to the articles in the way that administrative regulations, local regulations and rules are subordinate (Legislation Law, Art. 79). Article 85 of the Legislation Law contemplates that a new provision enacted in one law might be inconsistent with an existing provision in another law. There is nothing unlawful about such a situation. The issue is only one of how to interpret the two provisions compatibly. Only where “it is hard to decide which provision shall prevail” should a ruling by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress be needed. A deeming provision in the new law can help to make clear which of the two laws prevail. If the deeming provision in the new law deems the new provision to be consistent with the old provision then it will be clear that the new provision prevails and supersedes any previous understanding of the law. Deeming provisions are commonly used in Chinese legislation in the same way they are used in Hong Kong legislation.
. z, u9 `) _. B7 k6 v公仔箱論壇tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb5 P! X9 q. b" ~# B% K6 B( a$ o
The Hong Kong Bar Association expressed its view on the common law meaning and effect of Article 45 in relation to civil nominations. Such a view is important if the question of interpretation of Article 45 was before a Hong Kong court or even the Standing Committee. However the issue now is one of amendment of the Basic Law’s Annex I and whether it is lawful for the Standing Committee to approve an amendment that deems civil nominations consistent with Article 45. Even if statements made by certain members of that committee make it highly unlikely that such an amendment would ever be approved, the question of legality is a separate one and it should be made clear that the amendment is legally possible. It is one thing to say that civil nominations is inconsistent with the original intent of Article 45 but it is quite another to say that the Standing Committee has no legal authority to approve an amendment to Annex I that deems civil nominations to be consistent with Article 45, after having the support of the Chief Executive and two-thirds of Hong Kong legislators.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb" {& l! {$ {" Y
; g4 o& C4 G0 T4 iProfessor Simon NM Young and Professor Hualing Fu teach in the Faculty of Law,The University of Hong Kong" U9 R" u- g/ e
5.39.217.762 a, g! U# y' ]. X$ m
**Note that there is a separate procedure for amending the Basic Law articles in Article 159.7 Q J. C( B# a7 c. G4 R9 k
（原刊於「Design Democracy Hong Kong 港人講普選」；「Design Democracy Hong Kong 港人講普選」facebook專頁） |
發表於 2014-5-9 08:58 AM
| 