【不予受理】 中級法院認立法會中止職務議決屬政治性質行為。

【關於中級法院不受理本人的立法會上訴案】
Appeal of the AL Deliberation Rejected by TSI as Inadmissible

就我們向中級法院提起中止立法會中止職務議決效力的聲請(下稱「中止案」),本人律師的辦公室昨天收悉有關裁判書。同時他亦被告知,法官已對本人旨在宣告立法會該議決無效的主訴訟(下稱「上訴案」)作出決定。

上述兩項決定分別裁定兩宗案件——中止案和上訴案——均不予受理。據法院理解,立法會所作的議決屬於一項超越法院管轄範圍的「政治決定」。本人上月初就此一議決提出上訴,正是因為不少人相信立法會在作出該議決的過程中嚴重違反法律。然而,法院沒有審理案件的實體問題,亦即是說,法院並無裁定本人的論點屬對或錯,而是認為這並非一個法院能夠決定的問題。

從立法會提交的答辯中,我們得出如下結論:我們提出以上訴訟是正確的,我們無法找到立法會並無違反法律的合理法律論據。此外,立法會曾兩次向法院指出,涉及取消議員資格(DQ)的議決,受法院管轄且須受相關行政法約束。因此,我們認為,中止職務的議決本質上是具有相似性質的行為,理應獲得相似的對待。

在法治社會裡,不管勝負,亦無論同意與否,我們均應尊重法院的決定。法院所面對的是一個棘手問題,最終將有助於在兩個獨立機關——立法會和法院——之間劃定一條憲制界線,這本身就構成了將此案提交法院審理的一個額外的好理由。

我們正在深入分析有關裁判書,並將稍後決定是否會向終審法院提起上訴。無論如何,社會已經勝了一仗——肯定立法會的自主權,也是確認立法會在政府面前享有獨立性的一種方式。這是我們每人都應擁抱的財富。

My lawyer’s office received yesterday the Judgment published in the Courts’ website regarding the Request we filed with the Court of Second Instance (TSI) seeking the suspension of the AL Deliberation that suspended my mandate. He was also notified of a Decision from the Honourable Judge in charge of my Appeal (the main action I filed aimed at nullifying the AL Deliberation).

Both decisions determine that both cases – the Suspension Request and the Appeal – shall not proceed because the AL Deliberation is, in the Court’s understanding, a political decision beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts. I filed this legal action because many of us believe that the AL breached the law in a serious manner. However, the Court did not decide on the merits of the case. That is, the Court did not decide whether my arguments were right or wrong. The Court held the view that this was not a matter for the Courts to decide.

From the Defence filed by the President of the AL, we conclude that we were right in filing this legal action: we found no reasonable legal argument that would convince a well-informed person that the AL has not breached the law. Furthermore, some progress was made: the President of the AL accepted twice before the Court that a deliberation dismissing a legislator (loss of mandate) is subject to the Courts jurisdiction and to Administrative laws. Our opinion is that a deliberation suspending the mandate is similar in nature and should share a similar status.

In a society governed by the rule of law one should respect the courts’ rulings, despite winning or not, despite agreeing or disagreeing. The Court faced a difficult issue, one that will ultimately assist in drawing a Constitutional line between two independent bodies, the AL and the Courts: this constitutes per se a good additional reason to have brought this case to the Courts’ attention.

We are analyzing in depth the Court decisions and will decide whether we will seek an appeal to the Court of Final Instance (TUI). But Macau is already winning: affirming the autonomy of the AL is a way of confirming the independence of the AL before the Government as well. This is an asset we should all embrace.

蘇嘉豪 Sulu Sou
2018-02-04
—————————
中級法院不受理蘇嘉豪聲請中止立法會停職議決效力
Court’s Judgment to request of suspension of the effect of AL’s Deliberation
goo.gl/R1m3A8

關於加重違令案審訊順延的說明
Postponement of Trial of Alleged Crime of Aggravated Disobedience
goo.gl/irjyQn

回應兩議員關於政治行為的立法會決議案
Comments on the project of Resolution on the political nature of acts of the Legislative Assembly
goo.gl/fGTUom

關於上訴立法會職務中止程序的說明
Appeal I filed pertaining of the suspension of my mandate
goo.gl/prvzh1