《基本法》居留權條文的解釋與限制？上訴得直

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Ng Ka Ling 及 Ng Tan Tan 訴 入境事務處處長; Tsui Kuen Nang 訴 入境事務處處長; 入境事務處處長 訴 Cheung Lai Wah - 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 馬士禮 - 判決日期：1999年1月29日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及三宗上訴，均關乎《基本法》第24條所賦予的香港永久性居民身份及居留權。申請人均為在中國內地出生，但其父在他們出生時已是香港永久性居民的中國公民。他們在1997年7月1日或之前抵港，並向入境事務處處長（下稱「處長」）申索居留權。處長拒絕承認他們的權利，並根據《入境條例》（第115章）及《1997年入境（修訂）（第3號）條例》（下稱「第3號條例」）所設立的制度，要求他們返回內地申請單程證及居留權證明書。其中一名申請人張麗華小姐因非婚生子女身份，其與父親的親子關係亦受到質疑。本案挑戰第3號條例的合憲性、其追溯力，以及《1997年入境（修訂）（第2號）條例》（下稱「第2號條例」）中關於非婚生子女的條文。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議包括：終審法院是否有權解釋《基本法》相關條文，或是否必須根據《基本法》第158條提請全國人民代表大會常務委員會（下稱「全國人大常委會」）解釋（提請解釋問題）；《第3號條例》及其要求永久性居民持有單程證才能行使居留權的規定是否合憲；《第3號條例》的追溯力條文是否合憲；《第2號條例》中關於非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 終審法院裁定，法院有權解釋《基本法》，除非涉及中央人民政府負責的事務或中央與特區關係的條文，且該解釋會影響案件判決，才須提請全國人大常委會解釋。法院認為《基本法》第24條是案件實質上主要解釋的條文，而非第22(4)條，故無需提請解釋。法院採納目的性解釋原則，認為《基本法》第24(3)條賦予永久性居民的居留權是核心權利，不應受第22(4)條限制。法院亦裁定，《第3號條例》中要求永久性居民持有單程證才能行使居留權的規定違憲，但要求持有居留權證明書以核實身份的規定則合憲。此外，法院認為《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。關於非婚生子女問題，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《第2號條例》中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，宣告《入境條例》及《入境規例》中要求永久性居民持有單程證、居留權證明書必須附於有效旅行證件上，以及《第3號條例》的追溯力條文為無效並予以剔除。法院亦宣告《1997年7月11日公告》中涉及內地出入境管理部門的條文無效。此外，法院宣告《入境條例》附表1第1(2)(b)段中排除非婚生子女的條文無效。法院撤銷入境事務處處長對申請人的相關決定，並宣告所有申請人自1997年7月1日起即為香港永久性居民，享有居留權。訟費按法律援助條例及規例評定。 ### 判決啟示 本判決確立了香港法院對《基本法》的解釋權，並明確了在何種情況下須提請全國人大常委會解釋。它強調了《基本法》作為憲制性文件的目的性解釋原則，特別是對於保障基本權利的條文。判決重申了香港永久性居民居留權的核心地位，不受內地出入境管理條例的限制，並確認了非婚生子女在居留權方面的平等地位。此外，判決亦確認了臨時立法會的合法性，為香港特區成立初期的法律穩定性提供了重要基礎。此判決對香港的憲制發展和人權保障具有深遠影響。 --- ### 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 and Ng Tan Tan v Director of Immigration; Tsui Kuen Nang v Director of Immigration; Director of Immigration v Cheung Lai Wah - Court: Court of Final Appeal (CFA) - Judge: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Litton PJ, Mr Justice Ching PJ, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Sir Anthony Mason NPJ - Date of Judgment: 29 January 1999 ### Factual Background This case involves three appeals concerning the right of abode and permanent resident status under Article 24 of the Basic Law. The applicants were Chinese nationals born in mainland China, whose fathers were Hong Kong permanent residents at the time of their birth. They arrived in Hong Kong on or before 1 July 1997 and claimed the right of abode. The Director of Immigration (the "Director") refused to recognize their right, requiring them to return to the Mainland to apply for a one-way permit and a certificate of entitlement under a scheme established by the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115) and the Immigration (Amendment) (No. 3) Ordinance 1997 (the "No. 3 Ordinance"). One applicant, Miss Cheung Lai Wah, also faced challenges to her parent-child relationship due to being born out of wedlock. The case challenged the constitutionality of the No. 3 Ordinance, its retrospective provisions, and the provisions regarding children born out of wedlock in the Immigration (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance 1997 (the "No. 2 Ordinance"). ### Key Legal Issues The key legal issues 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 (the "Standing Committee") under Article 158 (the reference issue); the constitutionality of the No. 3 Ordinance and its requirement for permanent residents to hold a one-way permit to exercise the right of abode; the constitutionality of the retrospective provision in the No. 3 Ordinance; the constitutionality of the No. 2 Ordinance's provision regarding children born out of wedlock; and whether the Provisional Legislative Council was a legally constituted body. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Final Appeal ruled that Hong Kong courts have the power to interpret the Basic Law, with a duty to refer to the Standing Committee only if the provisions concern affairs of the Central People's Government or the relationship between the Central Authorities and the Region, and such interpretation affects the judgment. The Court found that Article 24 was the predominant provision to be interpreted, not Article 22(4), thus no referral was needed. Adopting a purposive approach, the Court held that the right of abode under Article 24(3) is a core right and is not qualified by Article 22(4). The Court found the No. 3 Ordinance unconstitutional to the extent it required permanent residents to hold a one-way permit to enjoy the right of abode, but constitutional in requiring a certificate of entitlement for verification. The retrospective provision of the No. 3 Ordinance was held unconstitutional as it violated Article 15(1) of the ICCPR. For children born out of wedlock, the Court held that Article 24(2) category three covers both legitimate and illegitimate children, rendering the exclusionary provision in the No. 2 Ordinance unconstitutional. Finally, the Court affirmed the Provisional Legislative Council as a legally constituted body. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Final Appeal allowed the applicants' appeals, declaring null and void and excising parts of the Immigration Ordinance and Regulations that required permanent residents to hold a one-way permit, that a certificate of entitlement must be affixed to a travel document, and the retrospective provision of the No. 3 Ordinance. Paragraphs A(1) and B of the Notice dated 11 July 1997, concerning Mainland Exit-Entry Administration involvement, were also declared null and void. The Court also excised the provision in Schedule 1, paragraph 1(2)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance that excluded children born out of wedlock. The Director's decisions against the applicants were quashed, and all applicants were declared permanent residents with the right of abode from 1 July 1997. Costs were to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Ordinance and Regulations. ### Key Takeaways This judgment firmly established the Hong Kong courts' power to interpret the Basic Law, clarifying the conditions for referral to the Standing Committee. It emphasized a purposive interpretation of the Basic Law, especially for fundamental rights, affirming the core status of the right of abode for permanent residents, free from Mainland exit control. The ruling also ensured equal status for children born out of wedlock regarding the right of abode and confirmed the legality of the Provisional Legislative Council. This landmark decision has profound implications for Hong Kong's constitutional development and human rights protection. --- ### 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.