《基本法》居留權與入境條例的合憲性？上訴得直

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：NG KA LING v THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION - 法院：香港終審法院 (Court of Final Appeal, CFA) - 法官：首席法官李國能、常任法官列顯倫、常任法官陳兆愷、常任法官包致金、非常任法官梅師賢爵士 - 判決日期：1999年1月29日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及三宗上訴，申請人均為中國公民，在內地出生，其父在他們出生時已是香港永久居民。他們根據《基本法》第24(2)條第三類別，聲稱擁有香港居留權。其中一名申請人張麗華小姐是婚外所生子女。入境事務處處長（「處長」）質疑張小姐的永久居民身份，並認為所有申請人均須遵守《1997年入境（修訂）（第3號）條例》（「第3號條例」）引入的「單程證」制度，方可確立其居留權。申請人質疑第3號條例的合憲性，以及臨時立法會（「臨立會」）的合法性。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議包括：終審法院是否有權解釋《基本法》相關條文，或必須根據第158條轉交全國人民代表大會常務委員會（「全國人大常委會」）解釋；第3號條例引入的居留權確立制度是否合憲；第3號條例的追溯力條文是否合憲；《入境條例》附表1第1(2)(b)段關於婚生子女的條文是否合憲；以及臨時立法會是否為合法組成的機構。 ### 判決理由 法院裁定，在解釋《基本法》時應採用目的性解釋方法。對於第158條的轉介問題，法院認為主要解釋的條文若非「中央事務」或「中央與特區關係」條文，則無需轉介。法院認為《基本法》第24條是居留權的根本來源，而第22(4)條不適用於已獲居留權的永久居民。因此，第3號條例中要求持有單程證才能享有居留權的規定違憲。然而，要求申請人申請居留權證明書以核實身份的制度則屬合憲。此外，法院裁定第3號條例的追溯力條文因違反《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》第15(1)條而違憲。關於婚生子女問題，法院認為《基本法》第24(2)條第三類別涵蓋婚生及非婚生子女，因此《入境條例》附表1第1(2)(b)段排除非婚生子女的條文違憲。最後，法院裁定臨時立法會是合法組成的機構。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用。 ### 裁決與命令 終審法院裁定申請人勝訴，宣布《1997年入境（修訂）（第3號）條例》中要求持有單程證才能享有居留權的條文、追溯力條文，以及《入境條例》附表1第1(2)(b)段中排除非婚生子女的條文違憲並予以剔除。法院同時宣布入境處處長的部分決定無效，並宣告申請人自1997年7月1日起即為香港永久居民，享有居留權。訴訟費用按法律援助條例處理。 ### 判決啟示 本判決確立了香港法院在解釋《基本法》方面的憲法管轄權，強調了《基本法》作為憲制性文件的目的性解釋原則。它明確了《基本法》第22(4)條不限制永久居民的居留權，並重申了《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》在香港的適用性，特別是禁止追溯性刑事法律的原則。此外，判決還確認了非婚生子女在居留權方面的平等地位，並確認了臨時立法會的合法性。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: NG KA LING v THE DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION - Court: Court of Final Appeal (CFA) - Judge: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Litton PJ, Mr Justice Ching PJ, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ and Sir Anthony Mason NPJ - Date of Judgment: 29 January 1999 ### Factual Background This case involved three appeals where the applicants, Chinese citizens born in mainland China, claimed the right of abode in Hong Kong under Article 24(2) of the Basic Law, based on their fathers being Hong Kong permanent residents at their birth. One applicant, Miss Cheung Lai Wah, was born out of wedlock. The Director of Immigration ("the Director") challenged Miss Cheung's permanent resident status and argued that all applicants were subject to a "one-way permit" scheme introduced by the Immigration (Amendment) (No 3) Ordinance 1997 ("the No 3 Ordinance") to establish their right of abode. The applicants challenged the constitutionality of the No 3 Ordinance and the legality of the Provisional Legislative Council ("PLC"). ### Key Legal Issues The core legal questions included: whether the Court of Final Appeal had jurisdiction to interpret relevant provisions of the Basic Law or was bound to seek an interpretation from the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress under Article 158; the constitutionality of the right of abode establishment scheme introduced by the No 3 Ordinance; the constitutionality of the retrospective provision in the No 3 Ordinance; the constitutionality of paragraph 1(2)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Immigration Ordinance concerning children born out of wedlock; and whether the Provisional Legislative Council was a legally constituted body. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court held that a purposive approach should be applied to the interpretation of the Basic Law. Regarding the Article 158 reference issue, the Court determined that a reference is not required if the predominant provision to be interpreted is not an "excluded provision" (concerning Central Government affairs or Central-Region relationship). Article 24 was deemed the fundamental source of the right of abode, and Article 22(4) does not apply to permanent residents already possessing the right of abode. Therefore, the No 3 Ordinance's requirement of a one-way permit for exercising the right of abode was unconstitutional. However, the scheme requiring a certificate of entitlement for verification of status was constitutional. The retrospective provision of the No 3 Ordinance was found unconstitutional as it violated Article 15(1) of the ICCPR. For children born out of wedlock, Article 24(2) category three covers both legitimate and illegitimate children, rendering paragraph 1(2)(b) of Schedule 1 unconstitutional for excluding illegitimate children. Finally, the Provisional Legislative Council was held to be a legally constituted body. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Final Appeal ruled in favour of the applicants, declaring unconstitutional and severing provisions of the Immigration (Amendment) (No 3) Ordinance 1997 that required a one-way permit for exercising the right of abode, its retrospective provision, and paragraph 1(2)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Immigration Ordinance excluding children born out of wedlock. The Court also quashed certain decisions of the Director of Immigration and declared the applicants to be permanent residents with the right of abode since 1 July 1997. Costs were to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Ordinance. ### Key Takeaways This judgment established the constitutional jurisdiction of Hong Kong courts to interpret the Basic Law, emphasizing a purposive approach for this constitutional document. It clarified that Article 22(4) of the Basic Law does not restrict the right of abode for permanent residents and reaffirmed the applicability of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Hong Kong, particularly the prohibition against retrospective criminal laws. The decision also affirmed the equal status of children born out of wedlock regarding the right of abode and confirmed the legality of the Provisional Legislative Council. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.