香港特區緊急權力法律規範：困局與破局

Emergency Law in HKSAR: Dilemma and Break

《香港基本法》《香港人權法案條例》《緊急情況規例條例》和《預防及控制疾病條例》共同構成香港特區緊急權力法律體系。由於制定機關、制定時代和制定目的分殊，不同法律中的緊急條款存在脫節。這種脫節給各界理解香港特區緊急權帶來困難，也令特區政府在行使緊急權時充滿顧慮。破解香港特區緊急權的法律困局，需要對香港特區現行法律（包括成文法和判例法）作一致性解釋。在“禁蒙面法”案中，香港法院維持了《緊急情況規例條例》的合憲性，確認了法律可授權行政長官在緊急情況下制定限制基本權利的附屬立法。在“疫苗通行證”案中，香港法院審查了根據《預防及控制疾病條例》制定的附屬立法的合法性，明確了附屬緊急立法限制基本權利需滿足的條件。理解香港特區的緊急權力，關鍵在於劃分本地層面的緊急情況和國家層面的緊急情況，區分事實上的緊急情況和法律上的緊急狀態，明確行政主導制下的選擇方案，以及確定橫向和縱向的權力監督機制。

Hong Kong Basic Law (HKBL), Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (HKBORO), Emergency Regulations Ordinance (ERO), and Prevention and Control of Disease Ordinance (PCDO) together constitute the emergency law in the HKSAR. Being enacted by different organs at different times for different purposes, these statutes are disconnected from each other. Such disconnection not only makes it difficult to understand the emergency powers in Hong Kong but also leaves the Hong Kong government hesitant while exercising emergency powers. To resolve the emergency powers dilemma facing the HKSAR, one should make a holistic and consistent interpretation of the existing emergency law, including statute law and case law. In the anti－mask law cases, courts of the HKSAR maintained the constitutionality of the ERO and confirmed that the ERO may empower the Chief Executive to make rights－restricting subordinate legislation. In the Vaccine Pass cases, courts of the HKSAR examined the legality of the subordinate legislation made under the PCDO and clarified the requirements for subordinate legislation to restrict fundamental rights. The key to understanding the emergency powers of the HKSAR is to distinguish between local emergencies and national emergencies, differentiate between emergency and state of emergency, clarify the options under the executive－led system, and ascertain vertical and horizontal power supervision mechanisms.