香港及澳門特別行政區法院合憲性司法審查與比例原則適用之比較研究

Abstract

回歸之后,港澳特區法院均進行了合憲性司法審查的實踐,然而,港澳特區法院各自通過其'司法構建'使香港、澳門在事實上產生出兩種不同的憲制秩序。本文檢視香港、澳門在回歸前后的成文憲制文件和不成文憲制性規范及其發展,比較兩者的異同,特別是兩地法院的合憲性司法審查權力的來源,以及法院在審查對權利所施加的限制時適用的比例原則。其后指出,港澳特區在這方面的差異主要是由于兩者不成文憲制性規范的差異造成,而兩地不成文憲制性規范之間的差異主要是因為港澳的法律傳統不同,以及港澳特區司法精英的價值取向及其作出的選擇不同。 Since the handover in 1997 and 1999 respectively,'the judicial construction of the Basic Law'has resulted in different constitutional orders in Hong Kong and Macao,even though in both jurisdictions the courts have engaged in constitutional review.This article explores the written and unwritten bases of the founding and development of constitutional judicial review before and after the return of Hong Kong and Macao to the motherland.It compares the similarities and differences in such written and unwritten bases,particularly in the contexts of the origins of the power of constitutional judicial review and the use of proportionality analysis in the review of restrictions on constitutional rights.It demonstrates that the differences are largely attributable to the unwritten,rather than the written,basis of constitutional review,and that such unwritten basis is to a significant extent determined by the different legal traditions between the two SARs,and probably to some extent also shaped by the values of and choices made by the judicial elites of the two SARs.