' l& {9 v. v. X, [& x' A' jQ9： 但權利並不是絕對，而且是可以被依法限制的吧？tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb# x9 ^* T; p C' B* c
對。但香港終審法院已於一系列案例多次非常清楚地表明：* }# ~9 Y. K7 }. C
- 基本權利應獲得寬容的解讀，以至香港居民能全面享受這些權利；及 . X- J: e: K, B" a# U5 }) o: Q- 任何對基本權利的限制應獲得狹義的解讀，而政府有責任證明該限制是合理的。 2 Q4 n G# t/ `# f- X5 l: m/ bwww.tvboxnow.comtvb now,tvbnow,bttvb2 N5 E, x8 F- N6 F Q10： 《基本法》的框架建基於香港是中國不可分割的一部分為前提，而香港的獨立與《基本法》的結構有根本性的矛盾。在這情況下，針對提倡香港獨立的基本權利作出限制，應該是合理的吧？9 b4 W7 _, N3 b: O/ c8 {, n( M
我們不同意，因為： & h* z9 J5 l) h' c# J- 縱使《基本法》的文字與框架是以香港是中國不可分割的一部分為前提，這並不應被孤立地解讀。這是必需耀與《基本法》內保證賦予給香港居民的基本權利共同解讀。如果大家看看《中英聯合聲明》，就會留意到把中國對香港恢復行使主權的部分是不能從香港居民享有的基本權利的部分分割出來及被賦予較高地位的。兩者均為《中英聯合聲明》內列出的中國針對香港的基本政策。 + ]) \9 {, M$ A% j9 t3 T7 WTVBNOW 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。- 其它地區（如美國、英國、加拿大）均有候選人甚至立法機關成員必須宣誓效忠自己的國家及/或擁護憲法的情況。但是在這些地區，公開提倡讓其區域獨立的候選人只要作出必須的效忠聲明及/或宣誓，就在過去或現在都未被阻止參選甚至成為當地立法機關的成員。2 }" q- t$ S) Y: l8 ~2 Q
www.tvboxnow.com3 h, A# U; m" ~3 m Q11： 但上述 Q10 所提及的例子涉及國家法例。香港只是中國國家內的一個地區。這些一定不是相關例子吧？www.tvboxnow.com" u- C$ ~4 o5 H. d1 `/ P# S
不正確。 , S+ [& Q: j- | |2 r& Btvb now,tvbnow,bttvb上述 Q10 所提及的所有例子當中，提倡獨立人士過往或現在均列席區域立法機構（例如蘇格蘭議會或魁北克省議會）。其中英國不像美國或加拿大，並不是聯邦制國家，而是有被轉予的立法機構（例如蘇格蘭議會）。因此，我們不同意香港的所謂「地區性」地位將削弱其居民所享有的權利之說法。 7 ]* D. D3 A' x0 n8 e: sTVBNOW 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。0 c6 f. K9 x/ R9 `; ?" ?* \! h
* * * * c" L: y$ w! U3 u. m) y, Atvb now,tvbnow,bttvb; f) g1 `1 G# H' g# M/ t 【D. 法律問題 - 法例框架】& W+ U* y4 w9 a
8 S8 G- R, I% nTVBNOW 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。Q12：什麼條文規定了選舉候選人的資格準則？公仔箱論壇9 ]- N" y* Z; y% h
《立法會條例》第 37 條列明候選人被提名的準則。該準則涉及如年齡、居留地和與（功能界別）行業相關的要求事項。公仔箱論壇% \8 P% D. B Q5 b l( d
4 X5 J* ?; U. b* j/ J1 R" `! Q2 SQ13： 在什麼情況下選舉候選人會被取消提名資格？ * K+ s F& w9 m' S' i& f( \1 b6 |www.tvboxnow.com《立法會條例》第 39 條列明一位候選人在以下情況下將喪失在選舉中獲提名為候選人的資格。 . I7 p) ~- \. `, Z w' Q- i公仔箱論壇這包括出任法官、持有外國政府職位、破產、被宣告患有精神病等等。 # N, C, m) Q4 }7 ^. k, n重要的是，該些情況還包括在任何時候被裁定犯叛逆罪、或者在選舉前五年內被裁定犯罪，並就該罪行被判處為期超逾三個月的監禁、賄賂或與選舉有關的罪行。 ) \6 @, t: ^ r6 o' H& d% `公仔箱論壇- x. ^' P; j! B" A* U6 \ Q14：一個人必須符合那些要求才可成為一名獲有效提名的選舉候選人？ ) q/ m8 X1 E; P1 W. Z6 ?! j- N《立法會條例》第 40 條列明除非一個人向選舉主任繳⬀按金，以及作出幾項聲明及誓言，否則他不會獲得有效提名。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。, T9 o8 h# }) Z# u, p' L' y
就目前而言，包含在選管會向選舉候選人提供的提名表格內的有關聲明是「一項示明該人會擁護《基本法》和保證效忠香港特別行政區的聲明」（見《立法會條例》第 40 （1）（b）（i）條）。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。1 d1 e: v1 B% l* b, v; |
此外，《選舉管理委員會（選舉程式）（立法會）規例》（「該規例」）第 10 及 11 條列明幾項對潛在候選人的各種額外行政上的要求，如作聲明表明他有資格獲提名及提供有提名人簽署的提名表格以支援其提名。公仔箱論壇8 G" ]" b+ D, Z0 l/ t/ O/ c, x
; u4 a. n, `# Utvb now,tvbnow,bttvbQ15：誰決定一個人是否獲有效被提名為選舉候選人？ 5 K$ P3 [. Q/ P" j0 L4 Qwww.tvboxnow.com根據《立法會條例》第 42A 條及該規例第 16（1）條，這是選舉主任的決定。選舉主任必須在收到提名表格後「盡快」作出決定。 / A, m9 K, A/ P: K, q公仔箱論壇公仔箱論壇 k# r/ g% k9 Z C$ q. v Q16：如果一個人已經遵守了 Q12 至 Q14 提及的所有要求，選舉主任還可以在什麼情況下斷定他不是一個獲有效提名的選舉候選人？7 O/ w' X+ _. a3 R
該等情況如下： + e/ p4 \. V) s5 r' }2 m Ztvb now,tvbnow,bttvb $ `& p5 ~" @: b3 B& \tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb- 在候選人退出有關選舉或選舉主任決定有關提名表格無效的情況下，該規例第 16（2）條允許選舉主任使該候選人的參選資格作廢。然而，後者僅涉及到提名表格本身的不妥當，因為該規例第 18 條提到會給予候選人機會去更正任何可影響該提名表格有效性的事項。無論如何，在是次選舉中，選舉主任並沒有根據該規例第 16（2）條取消各候選人的資格。相反，他們基於對候選人的真誠缺乏信任，而藉此聲稱該候選人並不符合以上 Q14 所述第40（1）（b）（i）條所要求的條件。公仔箱論壇: ]$ M# k3 _9 X F$ {2 O
- 該規例第 16（3）條規定，選舉主任「可並只可」基於某些理由而決定某項提名無效。這些理由包括沒有繳⬀適當的按金、候選人沒有在提名表格上簽署或提名人人數不足、候選人已去世、該人士在超過一個選區或界別中已獲提名和該人士並未符合《立法會條例》的要求（即是上文 Q12 至 Q14 所述的要求）。tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb/ E6 @* s7 e0 h( k. d4 C
8 O8 C% y% a: J* r; K& d$ D Q17：選舉主任是否有權向選舉候選人進一步提問來索取資料以確定其獲參選提名的有效性？tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb! g! O2 r- Q8 u- D% {+ P
該規例第 10（10）條規定選舉主任「可要求候選人提供選舉主任認為適當的任何其他資料，以令選舉主任信納（a）他有資格獲提名為候選人.....或（b）該項提名是有效的。」 $ s2 A" r v; j& [! u; Z5 Q$ ~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。 & u; K) s; ^* l) }( [驟眼一看，有人可能會認為選舉主任有權向候選人詢問任何事情或索取任何資料。然而，我們認為這種論據是不正確的。第 10（10）條意味著選舉主任只有權索取那些與選舉主任認為候選人將會因此而被取消資格的特定理由而相關的資料。例如，選舉主任無權索取有關候選人的宗教或政治信念的資料，因為該信念並不是一個選舉主任可以藉此而取消候選人資格的有效理由。 ; S0 [4 V1 O+ i& w公仔箱論壇在這方面，有香港案例表明，即使表面上有法例給予一個人概括性的權利去索取進一步資料，該權力的運用必定要合理地跟該人士有權去作決定的特定理由有關。因此，有見及上述 Q12 至 Q16所述的事項，我們認為選舉主任沒有權力去就候選人過去對香港獨立的態度作出詢問，因為這不是選舉主任可以主張一名選舉候選人參選不合資格或無效的任何一個理由。公仔箱論壇$ B9 z9 X8 F& D. i: n5 m4 H
在這方面，有香港案例表明，即使表面上有法例給予一個人概括性的權利去索取進一步資料，該權力的運用必定要合理地跟該人士有權去作決定的特定理由有關。因此，有見及上述 Q12 至 Q16所述的事項，我們認為選舉主任沒有權力去就候選人過去對香港獨立的態度作出詢問，因為這不是選舉主任可以主張一名選舉候選人參選不合資格或無效的任何一個理由。/ t$ ?+ Q; k. @6 M8 a1 S Z+ J) b
9 d. ]' ], W3 P4 \# [' F Q18：選舉主任是否有權對在提名過程中所作聲明中的真確性或其他方面作出判斷？ 3 s4 s9 `% M; t9 ~沒有。公仔箱論壇. e1 s B6 |# U
海外案例明確指出，選舉主任的角色是行政性質的，僅是確保提供給他們的任何檔表面上符合要求。選舉主任並不能進行廣泛的調查並作出性質上的判斷。如果候選人被指控作出虛假聲明，即屬刑事罪行，並應最終由法院作出決定。- y) P0 D3 f% X1 U3 ~" L* Z- t7 B
公仔箱論壇: U1 {3 h: n5 t8 N Q19：但是如果你們是錯誤的，選舉主任是否有權作出上述 Q18 的判斷？這是否意味著，在目前的情況下，選卌舉主任的確有權不相信選舉候選人根據《立法會條例》第 40（1）（b）（i）條所作的聲明，並裁定該候選人的提名無效？tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb3 Q7 r' v- M* d* I
不是。 " Z8 B1 r7 m I/ ?: Cwww.tvboxnow.com基於我們上述 Q8 至 Q11 的答案和《基本法》第 26 和 27 條（以及在《香港人權法案條例》的相應部分），我們相信選舉主任無權僅是因為一個人曾發言和主張支持香港獨立，所以斷定他必然無法擁護《基本法》或者效忠香港。www.tvboxnow.com% [" G6 i# R ~( J& J
承上述 Q13，《立法會條例》第 39 條列出一名選舉候選人的提名會取消的特定情況，這點也進一步引證了這個結論。例如，如有人在任何時候已被裁定犯叛逆罪或在過去五年內被判處三個月以上監禁（這很大可能會是因為他被裁定犯煽動叛亂、暴動等罪行而有機會判處的刑罰），他已經被取消資格。因此，現在已經有一個具體規定的機制（要求刑事起訴和定罪）去使犯有危害國家行為的候選人不合資格。可是，僅僅因為一名候選人曾經發言贊成和主張香港獨立，並不是第 39條所述的情況之一。 6 f2 X' o H8 u: BTVBNOW 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。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。 T. @2 v$ w o Q20： 但是如果你們就這點也是錯誤，而選舉主任的確有權作出上述 Q4 至 Q5 中概述的行為呢？ 0 U `& y( \) i8 R; q& ?% lwww.tvboxnow.com如事實的確是如此，香港基本權利與法治的未來發展是令人非常擔憂的。如果當權者可以就個人贊成香港獨立的發言或主張而禁止該人參選，那以後所有所謂違反《基本法》根本性前提的言論也可被視為不擁護《基本法》的證據。例子如下：www.tvboxnow.com+ L a6 u7 U3 m/ Z" h+ |
- 一國兩制是「根本性」的，難道所有支持「一國一制」的候選人都可以被取消參選資格？ % @7 ~. L0 z$ }+ c公仔箱論壇- 司法獨立是「根本性」的，難道所有對法官進行侮辱性言語攻擊的候選人都會被取消參選資格？www.tvboxnow.com& I2 R o& Q5 N1 }, ?: X
- 國家安全是「根本性」的，難道所有反對通過《基本法》第 23 條立法的候選人都會被取消參選資格？0 C8 ^8 ^* w z4 L3 [
更令人不安的是這事件絕有可能牽連到立法會選舉以外的情況。舉個例子，法官必須宣誓擁護《基本法》和保證效忠香港（見《基本法》第 104 條）。但倘若法官依法作出裁決，但裁決卻正是捍衛港獨分子的權利的，又如何？，是否我們就可以說法官的行為已違反了《基本法》第 1 和12 條（見 Q1）嗎？這是否意味著法官沒有擁護《基本法》，而因此被視為發假誓？一旦 Q1 至Q7 概述的類似情況能發生，當權者能任意行使權力、而至傷害法治及香港市民的基本權利的可能性就可以是無限的 。公仔箱論壇6 U/ `5 ^9 c. @0 f, {) W8 P
e, t o ?, A |; q. [: Y公仔箱論壇Q22：全國人民代表大會常務委員會（「人大常委」）會否就 Q1 至 Q7 涉及的議題作出幹預並根據《基本法》第 158 條解釋《基本法》？ 0 F% ?( X1 P1 GTVBNOW 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。就今次議題內容，特別是選舉主任是根據香港本地法例（即《立法會條例》及該規例）引用不合資格參選的權力，我們不認為有任何法理基礎需要人大常委釋法，因為人大的權力是詮釋《基本法》而不是詮釋本地法律。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。+ A* }8 |; s( j E1 K
但從以往所見，人大常委過往曾有主動就《基本法》引起的議題（及相關法律問題及程式）提出令人生疑的立場，以達到某些政治目的。我們只能希望人大常委會有智慧地不干預，並讓香港法庭自行處理今次事件。- e8 G( `, U# O( O+ K+ S) {. I/ V
www.tvboxnow.com4 L3 N- g+ H3 l; u7 ~
法政匯思/ ?) Q3 n3 l7 i# }6 Z& h: N O
2016 年 8 月 8 日作者: felicity2010 時間: 2016-8-9 10:50 PM
The Progressive Lawyers Group's FAQs in relation to the Electoral Affairs Commission’s recent actions on the issue of Hong Kong independence& a8 V% ]' D$ t5 w' J! A
8 Z' z; h4 s% J1 P) R A. Introductiontvb now,tvbnow,bttvb3 @- d& ]0 C. A* P# v4 d$ b
Since the nomination period opened in respect of the Legislative Council (“LegCo”) elections to be held on 4 September 2016 (“the Election”), there has been much public debate surrounding the Electoral Affairs Commission’s (“EAC”) actions in relation to Hong Kong independence. This debate has thrown up a myriad of legal issues. To provide greater clarity on the legal questions, the Progressive Lawyers Group have prepared the following FAQs, which set out our understanding of the background, as well as our position on the issues at hand7 C9 x! s6 d* _8 ]/ Y# C% N/ R9 g' b
In light of election guidelines regarding references to candidates, we have refrained from referring to names of specific candidates or constituencies. Our view is that this should not have any impact on the analysis set out in these FAQs. / I5 Z* d* J. {) Q3 u" g公仔箱論壇www.tvboxnow.com5 a3 t$ }( k& u' n+ t B. What happened? 3 A3 r+ `! |% }) ^9 Owww.tvboxnow.comQ1: What is this“confirmation form” that the EAC has asked Election candidates to sign?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。 q! I- u0 H3 c9 J2 M# h& ~( b4 W
On 14 July 2016, the EAC issued a press statement, saying that as part of the nomination process for candidates in the Election, it will ask all Election candidates to sign a confirmation form (“New Confirmation Form”). The New Confirmation Form contains confirmations that: 0 T/ X$ W" Q7 ]% L( |6 A) }. R8 N; H6 W# ], U
- the candidate upholds the Basic Law and pledges allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region;0 y$ O. V/ b4 O
-“upholding” the Basic Law includes upholding the following provisions of the Basic Law: (a) Article 1: The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China; (b) Article 12: The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be a local administrative region of the People's Republic of China, which shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy and come directly under the Central People's Government; (c) Article 159(4): No amendment to this Law shall contravene the established basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong; andtvb now,tvbnow,bttvb9 P5 @/ R: X5 O( z2 Z
- it is a criminal offence if the candidate makes a false declaration. 7 U# M- R% `3 u. I- s- v公仔箱論壇 8 v4 X' r4 o" ? v/ H公仔箱論壇Q2: Is the signing of the New Confirmation Form a legal requirement? 3 x6 d8 h% U: A' @8 N- j. [www.tvboxnow.comNo. 9 M! f; l3 z1 e. O8 L公仔箱論壇The nomination form that all Election candidates are required to sign already contains a declaration that the candidate would uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The EAC itself had made clear that the New Confirmation Form is not a legal requirement, but is used instead for informational purposes by the returning officers in considering the nominations of Election candidates. 1 H/ T7 a. K6 g0 Ttvb now,tvbnow,bttvbTVBNOW 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。+ `3 T; q% g, u) ?' x7 a& G Q3: Did all Election candidates sign the New Confirmation Form? 3 N$ J6 Q m) { Ytvb now,tvbnow,bttvbNo.www.tvboxnow.com1 s+ l+ E. H9 t
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。$ R* f0 {+ b2 y' ]9 _% E Q4: Did all Election candidates who did not sign the New Confirmation Form end up having their candidacies disqualified?+ A# L/ G# v1 ~% I. G% @# @
No.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。% x" S- i" z, w& N2 O9 O# A& ~9 \
Four Election candidates who did not sign the New Confirmation Form did indeed get disqualified. One candidate signed neither the New Confirmation Form nor the legally mandated declaration (see Q2 above) in the nomination form. The other three, who signed the declaration but not the New Confirmation Form, were all disqualified on the ground that they had, in the past, publicly stated support for Hong Kong independence.% @3 J4 I) X+ U: @
Nonetheless, a large number of other Election candidates who signed the declaration but not the New Confirmation Form were confirmed as being eligible to run. : E' w: e3 d+ ^6 }1 h8 ?/ ~! N " z; V- z: h2 z9 }) Y2 ~% S0 p" k公仔箱論壇Q5: Did all Election candidates who signed the New Confirmation Form end up having their candidacies confirmed?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。5 u, N# z, U/ o
No. ) f) _$ @3 C" g6 fTwo Election candidates who signed the New Confirmation Form still ended up being disqualified as candidates. Both were disqualified because they had, in the past, expressed support for Hong Kong independence. Basically, their signatures on the New Confirmation Form were disbelieved by the returning officer. In one case, the candidate had (in response to a written question from the returning officer) even disavowed Hong Kong independence; however, this was also disbelieved by the returning officer., o% W! B9 J* g" S( n3 I
www.tvboxnow.com; k$ R* M& l0 c6 }, L9 I Q6: Did all Election candidates who had previously expressed support for Hong Kong independence end up having their candidacies disqualified? ; K) L {. D! W/ x% Z- G ltvb now,tvbnow,bttvbNo.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb) K/ G# L; v4 I5 w" K$ U# g7 p
A number of individuals who had expressly stated their support for Hong Kong independence, or at least advocated self-determination for Hong Kong with independence as an option, have been confirmed as Election candidates. ; I2 F; N- T9 uQ7(a): So, even leaving aside any legal analysis, the returning officers’ treatment of the New Confirmation Form and individual Election candidates’ views on Hong Kong independence has been riddled with confusion and inconsistencies? ; q0 {/ o& m) wYes. 8 Z3 }2 v$ |. y4 j0 ]公仔箱論壇 / ]" ?9 s- x* m$ A F) g. Ztvb now,tvbnow,bttvbQ7(b): Why?- c* Z, w4 d+ f: ?
Conspiracy theories abound. We need not indulge in such theories. We need only point out that the EAC and the returning officers are best placed to answer this question. 9 c v( U. }: X( WTVBNOW 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。: C( ?( D& T5 S) j3 w7 s* v7 i C. Legal issues – constitutional framework and comparable international context 5 A+ P0 a y) E" v' jtvb now,tvbnow,bttvb - X- j# M+ f& f4 iQ8: What are the fundamental rights at stake in the facts as outlined in Q1 to Q7 above?6 D$ n+ {; e9 q$ Q. D2 v9 t
Article 26 of the Basic Law states that “[p]ermanent residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall have … the right to stand for election in accordance with law.”, f; \! ^4 f. d* u
Article 27 of the Basic Law states that “Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech”.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb1 D& A: e- d' M* L1 j
The right to stand for election and right to freedom of speech are further protected through Article 16 and 21 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (which correspond with Articles 19 and 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which by virtue of Article 39 of the Basic Law is to be implemented through Hong Kong laws).公仔箱論壇4 ~; K, {* K. @0 W
, s; Q: i4 J& j) P/ m, L+ c! `. zwww.tvboxnow.comQ9: But surely rights are not absolute and can be subject to lawful limitations? 3 r% q. H4 g" V8 X, K" Ltvb now,tvbnow,bttvbYes. However, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal has repeatedly made it very clear that: : H! j$ W2 ?7 y3 }+ f4 _" l- fundamental rights should be interpreted generously so that Hong Kong residents can enjoy them in full measure; andTVBNOW 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。. c6 {- u5 b0 E$ X
- any restrictions on fundamental rights should be interpreted narrowly, and the burden is on the Government to justify such restrictions.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb+ J' \$ i$ \9 ]7 ^5 }; ?. W2 k7 C
/ n; `6 m( J! ?0 w. O# F Q10: But surely it is justifiable to restrict fundamental rights if a person is advocating Hong Kong independence, given that this is fundamentally inconsistent with the structure of the Basic Law (which is based on Hong Kong being an inalienable part of China)?3 e& v& v y5 `
We disagree, because:公仔箱論壇! s0 r. C) L* y' O7 ?0 r; |
Whilst the text and structure of the Basic Law is based on Hong Kong being an inalienable part of China, this fact should not be read in isolation. It must be read together with the fundamental rights that have been guaranteed to Hong Kong residents. Indeed, if one looks at the Sino- British Joint Declaration, the resumption of China’s sovereignty over cannot be separated out and given higher status than the fundamental rights to which Hong Kong residents are entitled. They both form part of the “basic policies” of China regarding Hong Kong as set out in the Joint Declaration. " I2 {* x2 D8 b, p& N; iIn other places (e.g. United States, United Kingdom, Canada), there have been numerous candidates or even members of legislatures who have to swear allegiance to their country and/or to upholding its constitution. However, in all of these places, candidates openly seeking independence for their regions have in the past or currently not been prevented from standingtvb now,tvbnow,bttvb. B) z _1 y$ D' M( K+ d
for elections or even becoming members of legislatures, provided they make the necessary declarations and/or oaths of allegiance.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb" _7 B, ^& E( ]8 I, L r
8 |; }7 B" A- Y6 m$ J Q11: But the examples in Q10 above relate to national legislatures. Hong Kong is merely a region under the Chinese nation. Surely these examples are not relevant?公仔箱論壇6 W, X g$ T( W. j
Incorrect. 1 z$ a8 i/ w7 q0 m5 m4 D* ^5 C1 z公仔箱論壇In all three examples in Q10 above, independence advocates also sat or currently sit in regional legislatures (e.g. the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly of Quebec). The United Kingdom in particular is not a federal state (unlike the United States or Canada) but instead has devolved legislatures (e.g. the Scottish Parliament). As such, we disagree with the argument that somehow Hong Kong's “regional” status would lessen the measure of rights being enjoyed by its residents. - {1 h, F8 V7 h/ R ?: [" q7 @) htvb now,tvbnow,bttvb T9 [1 O7 G$ e7 G2 b! M6 t4 p+ l& i D. Legal issues – statutory framework ( e+ X0 N5 R- P( @' i: E9 r/ ?www.tvboxnow.com 1 S2 S; S9 D5 N9 Q2 A Ktvb now,tvbnow,bttvbQ12: What provision sets out the eligibility criteria for Election candidates? ) u$ ?$ d) W) D/ e! t7 d% y2 W4 xTVBNOW 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。Section 37 of the Legislative Council Ordinance (“LCO”) sets out the criteria for being eligible to be nominated as a candidate. The criteria relate to matters such as age, residency, and (for functional constituencies) sector-related requirements.2 p) D3 F7 h' V2 u$ `7 c& `
5 G- v! x" a! k6 [& ?& U0 t% yTVBNOW 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。Q13: When is a person disqualified from being nominated as an Election candidate? 6 _! |" G' Z' K" e6 h3 eTVBNOW 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。Section 39 of the LCO sets out the circumstances where a person would be disqualified from being nominated as an Election candidate. 9 x; Q, c3 \0 a7 lwww.tvboxnow.comThey include being a judge; holding foreign government positions; being bankrupt; being declared mentally ill; etc. 8 D0 |6 I+ n. a5 w+ {公仔箱論壇Importantly, they also include being convicted of treason at any time; or being convicted, within five years before the election, of an offence with an imprisonment sentence of more than three months, or of bribery, or of election-related offences. ! L2 a5 J' C% W8 U3 C1 G( E) g1 f- W7 i8 V! ~2 r Q14: What requirements does a person have to comply with to become a validly nominated Election candidate?" N" p7 j2 S- F6 N6 M P( q
Section 40 of the LCO states that a person is not validly nominated unless he places a deposit with the EAC, as well as making several declarations and oaths.www.tvboxnow.com1 g( r# W# c. N2 `
For present purposes, the relevant declaration (contained in the nomination form provided by the EAC for Election candidates) is one “to the effect that the person will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region” (see section 40(1)(b)(i) of the LCO).tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb8 p0 y4 d0 d2 S0 u8 N
In addition, sections 10 and 11 of the Electoral Affairs Commission (Electoral Procedure) (Legislative Council) Regulation (“Regulation”) sets out various additional administrative requirements for potential candidates, such as declarations on eligibility to stand and subscribers in support of his nomination.8 d- y* j7 c& y: d6 U5 Y# W& x; u2 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。9 q. t+ K4 C) S( j# N" N. e- J Q15: Who decides whether a person is validly nominated as an Election candidate? , }2 v; f0 ]. ?: D. U公仔箱論壇According to section 42A of the LCO and section 16(1) of the Regulation, it is for a returning officer to decide. The returning officer must do so “as soon as practicable” after receiving a nomination form. `/ n1 u3 Y: a* [1 D2 y# \www.tvboxnow.comwww.tvboxnow.com0 ~6 Z4 `8 @8 s7 [! c% T6 j Q16: If all requirements under Q12 to Q14 above are complied with, what are the circumstances where a returning officer can still decide that a person is not a valid Election candidate? & {* m: L& ]1 ^ l# A# a9 Dtvb now,tvbnow,bttvbThe circumstances are as follows:* n1 k) o2 @" w8 G- C
Section 16(2) of the Regulation allows a returning officer to invalidate a candidacy if the candidate withdraws, or if the returning officer decides that a nomination form is invalid. However, this relates only to defects on the nomination form itself, because section 18 of the Regulation refers to an opportunity being given to the candidate to rectify anything on the form which affects its validity. In any event, in the present case of the Election, the returning officers did not rely on section 16(2) of the Regulation in disqualifying various candidates. Instead, they relied upon their lack of belief in the candidates’ truthfulness, and this allegedly meant that section 40(1)(b)(i) under Q14 above was not satisfied.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb4 z) m' m7 O8 \( N4 n( g8 B+ u
Section 16(3) states that a returning officer may decide a nomination is invalid “if and only if” a number of conditions are satisfied. They include failure to pay election deposit; lack of requisite signatures or subscribers on the nomination form; the candidate is dead; an individual nominating for more than one constituency; and where a person has not satisfied the LCO requirements (which would be the requirements under Q12 to Q14 above).& H# N/ P$ y+ {! g2 l
, \7 g9 n! Z/ E' v4 S7 S公仔箱論壇Q17: Does a returning officer have the power to ask further questions to seek further information from an Election candidate for the purpose of determining the validity of his candidacy?www.tvboxnow.com' u m! d6 h( C& t8 C- t
Section 10(10) of the Regulation states that a returning officer “may require a candidate to furnish any other information that Officer considers appropriate to be satisfied (a) that he or she is eligible to be nominated as a candidate … ; or (b) as to the validity of the nomination.” 0 ~# h4 T! d+ a; O" Bwww.tvboxnow.comAt first glance, it may be argued that the returning officer have the power to ask anything or seek any information from candidates.www.tvboxnow.com, a+ d5 d) F9 I8 ~4 ~
However, in our view, this argument is incorrect. It is implied within section 10(10) that the returning officer is only entitled to ask for information if that information is relevant to a specific ground upon which the returning officer may disqualify a candidate. For example, the returning officer is not entitled to ask for information about a candidate’s religious or political beliefs, because such beliefs are not a valid ground for the returning officer to disqualify a candidate.公仔箱論壇* ]4 ~. V9 U' F6 k
In this regard, there is Hong Kong case law suggesting that even if someone appears to be generally empowered by legislation to ask for further information, such exercise of power must be reasonably connected to a particular ground upon which it has the power to make a particular decision. Thus, in view of matters referred to under Q12 to Q16 above, we consider that a returning officer does not have the power to ask questions about a candidate's past attitudes towards Hong Kong independence, because this does not go to any of the grounds on which a person can be held by the returning officer to be ineligible or invalid as an Election candidate. , o J' Y& t x, ? ; ^5 P w( [" eQ18: Does a returning officer have the power to make judgments as to the truthfulness or otherwise of a declaration made in the nomination process? ' |/ T9 a7 I' v% _8 ?" @tvb now,tvbnow,bttvbNo.公仔箱論壇! H8 y/ O8 e) R) L6 R- |: [
Overseas case law makes it clear that the role of a returning officer is an administrative one, being merely to ensure that any document presented to them is, on its face, in order. It is not open to the returning officer to conduct wide-ranging inquiries and make qualitative judgments. If a candidate is alleged to have made a false declaration, that is a criminal offence and should be ultimately be decided by the courts.tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb; w B' s2 S/ `: F% f# X* v4 Y8 M
6 f P. B/ a, T7 u. iTVBNOW 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。Q19: But what if you are wrong and a returning officer does have the power to make the judgments in Q18 above? Does that mean, in the present case, the returning officers did have the power to disbelieve the Election candidates’ declaration under section 40(1)(b)(i) of the LCO and hold that the candidates' nominations were invalid? 8 [9 y- ?- \- J: ~* r& r q. U- qtvb now,tvbnow,bttvbNo.5 z9 \0 K. p" H k# L1 `" s$ z3 b' s
Based on our answers to Q8 to Q11 above, and also Articles 26 and 27 of the Basic Law (as well as the corresponding sections in the Hong Kong Bill of Rights), we believe that a returning officer is not entitled to conclude that a person would necessarily fail to uphold the Basic Law or cannot pledge allegiance to Hong Kong merely because he had spoken and argued in favour of Hong Kong independence. . m. {" c8 K+ |' \www.tvboxnow.comThis conclusion is further supported by the fact that, as noted under Q13 above, section 39 of the LCO sets out the specific circumstances where a person would be disqualified from being nominated as an Election candidate. For example, if a person is convicted of treason at any time or sentenced to more than three months’ imprisonment (which would likely be the sentence for someone convicted of sedition, riot, etc) within the last five years, he would be disqualified. Thus, there is already a specific prescribed mechanism (which requires criminal prosecution and conviction) for disqualifying candidates who have committed acts against the state. But merely because a candidate had spoken and argued in favour of Hong Kong independence does not fall under the circumstances described under Section 39. / B$ C! k+ i, k- }- } ( {/ E9 D+ k9 y6 }/ D9 F- T% O. f公仔箱論壇Q20: But what if you are wrong even on this and returning officers did have the power to act as described under Q4 to Q5 above?tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb, l, ~; {; m! ]# ?9 n
If that is the case, that would be most troubling for the future of fundamental rights and rule of law in Hong Kong. If those in power can today ban individuals from standing for election because they spoke or argued in favour of Hong Kong independence, in future all manner of speech which are alleged to be in breach of a fundamental premise of the Basic Law could be deemed as evidence of failure to uphold the Basic Law. For example: / _5 n, a( X; e! c* k4 b9 e8 XTVBNOW 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。One country, two systems is "fundamental”, so those speaking in favour ‘one country, one system’ could be disqualified as candidates? ' u1 L ]( z* a2 _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。Judicial independence is “fundamental”, so those who make abusive verbal attacks on judges’ acts could be disqualified as candidates?tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb9 j$ v( d+ O1 e' t0 T
National security is “fundamental”, so those speaking against the introduction of legislation prescribed by Article 23 of the Basic Law could be disqualified as candidates? # N; \4 U5 s/ u' vtvb now,tvbnow,bttvbWhat is even more troubling is that this could well extend beyond LegCo elections. For example, judges must also swear to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to Hong Kong (see Article 104 of the Basic Law). What if judges make rulings which are in accordance with the law, but which seek to protect the rights of Hong Kong independence activists? Can judges then also be said to have acted contrary to Articles 1 and 12 of the Basic Law (referred to under Q1 above)? Would this mean that judges have also failed to uphold the Basic Law and therefore render their oaths of office false? The possibilities for the arbitrary exercise of power, to the detriment of the rule of law and Hong Kong residents’ fundamental rights, are potentially unlimited once the floodgates are opened by the circumstances such as those under Q1 to Q7 above. 6 c, u4 b9 I5 L" g) i# V公仔箱論壇8 @3 p$ E; W3 W3 { E. What comes next ! Q6 @$ K% D1 \6 }公仔箱論壇tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb) u& [- ~5 M6 K% R Q21: What happens next for those candidates who have ultimately been barred from running in the Election in circumstances as set out under Q1 to Q7 above?tvb now,tvbnow,bttvb1 P* r! O+ s3 w" M8 ?7 `
Several judicial review proceedings are already in progress. Some of the barred Election candidates have also said that they will challenge their disqualifications by way of election petition. It would not be appropriate at this stage for us to comment on these court proceedings, except to say that they will be amongst the most important court proceedings in post-1997 Hong Kong history.公仔箱論壇( g) t% x: C; Y7 }8 p8 d v
& B) |2 P5 o- v, O: [$ d" HTVBNOW 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。Q22: Might the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (“SCNPC”) seek to intervene in the matters described under Q1 to Q7 above by way of an interpretation of the Basic Law (under Article 158 of the Basic Law)? 1 O# v9 a& w# `! q, f: NGiven the nature of the matters at hand, and especially the fact that the disqualification powers exercised by the returning officers were under local legislation (i.e. the LCO and the Regulation), we do not see any legal basis for the SCNPC to intervene, because the SCNPC's power is to interpret the Basic Law itself and not to interpret local legislation. / R( _! S' k( v: Gtvb now,tvbnow,bttvb4 y6 } S# v* X! f3 y
But as we have seen in the past, the SCNPC has been willing to take dubious positions on the Basic Law (and related legal issues and processes) in order to achieve certain political ends. We can only hope that the SCNPC will in its wisdom decide not to intervene and let the matter be determined by the Hong Kong courts. % R+ F6 {9 m3 U) T, C公仔箱論壇 5 W; ^0 K' h7 fProgressive Lawyers Groupwww.tvboxnow.com" }- C6 C) P+ y( [
8 August 2016
8 O* D' Y n& I2 y3 B3 W6 @1 p