Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance | |
---|---|
Legislative Council of Hong Kong | |
| |
Citation | Cap. 383 |
Enacted by | Legislative Council of Hong Kong |
Commenced | 7 June 1991 |
Legislative history | |
Introduced by | Chief Secretary Sir David Robert Ford |
Introduced | 20 July 1990 |
First reading | 25 July 1990 |
Second reading | 5 June 1991 |
Third reading | 5 June 1991 |
Amended by | |
1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2003, 2017 [1] | |
Status: Current legislation |
Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Traditional Chinese | 香港人權法案條例 | ||||||||
|
The Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (HKBORO),often referred to as the Hong Kong Bill of Rights,is Chapter 383 of the Laws of Hong Kong,which transposed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights so that it is incorporated into Hong Kong law.
The Government of the United Kingdom ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on 20 May 1976. The ICCPR was extended to British Dependent Territories,including Hong Kong,in the same year. [2] Continued application of the ICCPR in the Hong Kong Special Administration Region was stipulated in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and Article 39 of the Basic Law.
After the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre in the summer of 1989,the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance was intended to restore the shattered confidence of the people of Hong Kong in their future. Amidst growing urges in society on giving effect to rights in the ICCPR in the domestic law of Hong Kong,the Hong Kong Government decided to draft a Bill of Rights for Hong Kong to incorporate into domestic law relevant rights,as applied in Hong Kong. [3] The Bill of Rights met strong opposition from the Chinese Government as soon as it was proposed. The Chinese Government regarded the Bill of Rights as unnecessary,detrimental to the maintenance of public order,and inconsistent with the Basic Law.
The objection of the Chinese Government had a profound impact on both the form and the content of the Bill of Rights. In terms of its content,in order to ensure the consistency of the Bill of Rights with the Basic Law,it was decided that,instead of drafting a bill which was tailor-made for Hong Kong,the Bill of Rights should simply incorporate the ICCPR as applied to Hong Kong. It had been agreed in the Sino-British Joint Declaration that the ICCPR as applied to Hong Kong shall remain in force after the changeover. The expression 'as applied to Hong Kong' was understood to include the substantive rights provisions of the ICCPR subject to the reservations entered by the United Kingdom upon her ratification of the same. Hence,Part II of the present Ordinance reproduces verbatim the substantive rights provisions of the ICCPR,subject to minor changes reflecting the fact that Hong Kong is not a sovereign state. Part III of the HKBORO reproduces,albeit in slightly different language,the reservations entered by the United Kingdom in respect of Hong Kong. [4]
The Bill of Rights was introduced to the Legislative Council on 25 July 1990,passed by the Legislative Council in June 1991 and was enacted on 8 June 1991. [3] Corresponding amendments were made to the Letters Patent to give the ICCPR an “entrenched status”in Hong Kong’s constitutional documents. [5] After its enactment,any legislation which encroach the HKBORO would be deemed unconstitutional.
HKBORO contains 14 sections divided into three parts: [6]
Before 1997,the Ordinance overrides other Hong Kong legislations as provided by Sections 3 and 4 of the Ordinance.
The HKBORO was given an entrenched status by an amendment to the Hong Kong Letters Patent which stipulated that no law shall be made after 8 June 1991 that "restricts the rights and freedoms enjoyed in Hong Kong in a manner which is inconsistent with the ICCPR as applied to Hong Kong." [7] Any statutory provision which is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights was repealed on 8 June 1991,upon the commencement of the HKBORO. This led to the amendment of some Hong Kong laws so as to bring them in conformity with the HKBORO,for example the Public Order Ordinance. [8]
The Chinese Government objected to the entrenched status of the HKBORO;otherwise this would be a departure from the Basic Law since no legislation in Hong Kong prior to the change of sovereignty in 1997 enjoyed a higher status than other legislation. As such,Sections 2(3),3 and 4 were not adopted as part of the laws of the Hong Kong SAR in accordance with the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on 23 February 1997. [9]
Even so,the entrenched status of the ICCPR (and subsequently the HKBORO) in the constitutional framework of Hong Kong continue with the effect of article 39 of the Basic Law,while the Basic Law itself consisted of provisions of fundamental rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents. [10] The Court of Final Appeal has recognized that provision on rights in HKBORO continue to override contravening laws:
The Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance… in fact provides for the incorporation of the provisions of the ICCPR into the laws of Hong Kong…. by virtue of art 39(2) of the Basic Law, a restriction on either freedom [in BORO or Basic Law] cannot contravene the provisions of the ICCPR”.
The enactment of HKBORO in 1991 provided the foundation for constitutional guarantees of rights and freedom in Hong Kong. Albert Chen Hung-yee described the enactment of the Ordinance as “the first constitutional revolution” in Hong Kong. [12] Before its enactment, human rights protection was exclusively reliant on judge-made common law principles; courts were not empowered to conduct constitutional review of legislations for the lack of relevant provisions on human rights protection in the Hong Kong Letters Patent. [13]
With the advent of HKBORO, the courts of Hong Kong embarked upon an era of meaningful constitutional review. In early days the Courts were concerned with whether pre-8 June 1991 legislation had been repealed by the HKBORO for inconsistency. The period from 8 June 1991 to 1 July 1997 was described as one during which the courts of Hong Kong produced a valuable if not very large body of human rights jurisprudence and gained a useful six years of pre-handover experience of meaningful constitutional review. [14]
Article 39 of the Basic Law creates a part of the post-handover tripartite framework on human rights protection, where:
A right may be provided for (i) in both the Basic Law and the [Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Bill); or (ii) only in the Basic Law and not in the Bill; or (iii) only in the Bill but not in the Basic Law.
Any restrictions on rights and freedoms stipulated the ICCPR (and subsequently the HKBORO) must be prescribed by law and justified, according to Chief Justice Andrew Li in Gurung Kesh Bahadur v Director of Immigration (2002) 5 HKCFAR 480. Subsequently, the proportionality test was developed in Leung Kwok Hung v HKSAR(2005) 8 HKCFAR 229:
[T]he restriction must be rationally connected with one or more of the legitimate purposes; and (2) the means used to impair the right of peaceful assembly must be no more than is necessary to accomplish the legitimate purpose in question.
— Chief Justice Andrew Li, Permanent Judges Patrick Chan Siu-oi and Roberto Ribeiro and Non-permanent Judge Sir Anthony Mason, Leung Kwok Hung v HKSAR(2005) 8 HKCFAR 229 [16]
The HKBORO enabled Hong Kong to enter the era of judicial review of legislations. [17] The practice of utilizing constitutional review of legislation flourished. Constitutional review principles like proportionality have since been developed.
The HKBORO in some circumstances also imposes an obligation for positive actions to manifest rights provided in the Ordinance through enacting laws and adopting social policies.
The politics of Hong Kong takes place in a framework of a political system dominated by its quasi-constitutional document, the Hong Kong Basic Law, its own legislature, the Chief Executive as the head of government and of the Special Administrative Region and of a politically constrained multi-party presidential system. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China is led by the Chief Executive, the head of government.
The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China is a national law of China that serves as the organic law for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). Comprising nine chapters, 160 articles and three annexes, the Basic Law was composed to implement Annex I of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration.
Article 23 is an article of the Hong Kong Basic Law. It states that Hong Kong "shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies."
Right of abode in Hong Kong entitles a person to live and work in the territory without any restrictions or conditions of stay. Someone who has that right is a Hong Kong permanent resident. Foreign nationals may acquire the right of abode after meeting a seven-year residency requirement and are given most rights usually associated with citizenship, including the right to vote in regional elections. However, they are not entitled to hold territorial passports or stand for office in some Legislative Council constituencies, unless they also naturalise as Chinese citizens.
Article 69 of Hong Kong Basic Law is an article in the Basic Law of Hong Kong. The article sets the term of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong (LegCo).
The law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has its foundation in the English common law system, inherited from being a former British colony and dependent territory. There are several sources of law, the primary ones being statutes enacted by the Legislative Council of Hong Kong and case law made by decisions of the courts of Hong Kong.
An organic law is a law, or system of laws, that form the foundation of a government, corporation or any other organization's body of rules. A constitution is a particular form of organic law.
Human rights protection is enshrined in the Basic Law and its Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap.383). By virtue of the Bill of Rights Ordinance and Basic Law Article 39, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is put into effect in Hong Kong. Any local legislation that is inconsistent with the Basic Law can be set aside by the courts. This does not apply to national legislation that applies to Hong Kong, such as the National Security Law, even if it is inconsistent with the Bills of Rights Ordinance, ICCPR, or the Basic Law.
Judicial review in Hong Kong is conducted according to the Constitutional and Administrative Law List. It comprises two different aspects: firstly, judicial review of domestic ordinances as to their compatibility with the Basic Law ; secondly, judicial review of administrative decisions under administrative law.
Leung TC William Roy v Secretary for Justice is a leading Hong Kong High Court judicial review case on the equal protection on sexual orientation and the law of standing in Hong Kong. Particularly, the Court sets up a precedent case prohibiting unjustified differential treatments based upon one's sexual orientation.
The Public Order Ordinance is a piece of primary legislation in Hong Kong. It codifies a number of old common law public order offences. It imposes notification requirements for public processions and meetings which resemble a licensing regime. It also provides for the designation of restricted areas along the Hong Kong-China border and in the military installations. The 1967 Ordinance was enacted in the aftermath of the 1967 Leftist riots. For the following decades, the stringent control over public processions and meetings was relaxed incrementally until 1990s when it was brought in line with human rights standards. Upon Hong Kong handover, the amendments in the 1990s were decreed "not adopted as the laws of the HKSAR" by the NPCSC of China and therefore reverted.
A controversy arose during the 2016 Legislative Council election in Hong Kong as the Electoral Affairs Commission (EAC) banned six potential localist candidates from running for the Legislative Council of Hong Kong (LegCo). The EAC carried out a new election measure to require all candidates to sign an additional "confirmation form" in the nomination to declare their understanding of Hong Kong being an inalienable part of China as stipulated in Article 1, Article 12 and Article 159(4) of the Basic Law of Hong Kong.
National Security Bill was a proposed bill which aimed to amend the Crimes Ordinance, the Official Secrets Ordinance and the Societies Ordinance pursuant to the obligation imposed by Article 23 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and to provide for related, incidental and consequential amendments. The proposed bill caused considerable controversy in Hong Kong and a massive demonstration on 1 July 2003. In the aftermath, James Tien resigned from the Executive Council and the bill was withdrawn after it became clear that it would not get the necessary support from the Legislative Council for it to be passed. The bill was then shelved indefinitely.
The National Anthem Ordinance is an ordinance of Hong Kong intended to criminalise "insults to the national anthem of China". It is a local law in response to the National Anthem Law of the People’s Republic of China.
The Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation ("PFCR") is a regulation prohibiting the wearing of face coverings in certain circumstances made by Chief Executive in Council under the Emergency Regulations Ordinance due to the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests. The Court of First Instance heard applications for judicial review from 24 members of the Legislative Council (LegCo) and Leung Kwok-hung, a former LegCo member, submitted in early October. On 18 November, it ruled that both the prohibition on the wearing of masks and related powers granted to the police to enforce it are inconsistent with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, whilst leaving the question of relief to a future hearing. On 22 November, the court declared the PFCR invalid and of no effect, but suspended the application of that declaration till 29 November 2019. The government appealed the decision on 25 November to the Court of Appeal, which partially allowed the government's appeal. The prohibition of masks at unauthorised assemblies was ruled to be constitutional, but the power to remove masks and the prohibition on wearing masks at authorised assemblies was ruled unconstitutional. On appeal, the Court of Final Appeal upheld the constitutionality of the PFCR in its entirety, including the prohibition on face coverings at authorised assemblies and processions. However, since the government did not appeal against Article 5, power to require removal in public place of facial covering, this part remains void.
Kwok Wing Hang and others v Chief Executive in Council and another is a Hong Kong constitutional case concerning the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation (PFCR) and Emergency Regulations Ordinance (ERO).
The Decision of the National People's Congress on Establishing and Improving the Legal System and Enforcement Mechanisms for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to Safeguard National Security is a congressional resolution passed by the third session of the 13th National People's Congress on 28 May 2020. This resolution authorizes the National People's Congress Standing Committee to promulgate a national security law in Hong Kong.
The Public Offices Ordinance 2021 is an ordinance to amend the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance and other relating legislation which adds new requirements for the Chief Executive, Executive Council members, Legislative Council members and judges and other judicial officers, imposes oath-taking requirements on District Council members, and specifies requirements for candidates to swear to uphold the Basic Law and bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region when assuming office or standing for election and also adds new grounds and mechanism for disqualification from holding the office or being nominated as a candidate. The ordinance was seen as another round of the Beijing authorities to bar the opposition from standing in elections or holding public offices and also raised concerns on the bill's vague parameters of the oath with such over-reaching scope would undermine Hong Kong's judicial independence.
Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration was a joint appeal of three cases decided in 1999 by Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal (CFA). Chief Justice Andrew Li, in the Court's unanimous opinion, held that mainland-born children of Hong Kong permanent residents enjoyed the right of abode, regardless of whether one of their parents have acquired Hong Kong permanent residency at the time of birth of the children.
HKSAR v. Lai Chee Ying was an appeal involving points of law by the Department of Justice over the decision of the Court of First Instance (CFI) to grant bail to the founder of Apple Daily Jimmy Lai. The Court of Final Appeal (CFA) reversed the CFI's interpretation of art.42(2) of the Hong Kong national security law.