Lawmaker Sulu Sou has filed an appeal against the decision of the president of the Legislative Assembly (AL) Ho Iat Seng to reject a proposal made by Sou on July 30 during a plenary meeting.
Sou had aimed to amend the bill under discussion, in which the AL ultimately voted to approve the transfer of the power to approve or forbid street protests and public demonstrations from the Civic and Municipal Affairs Bureau (IACM) to the Public Security Police Force (PSP).
In the proposal made that day, the lawmaker suggested the transfer of such powers from the IACM into the hands of the Chief Executive (CE) Chui Sai On, instead of the police.
At the time, the proposal generated many doubts and questions from lawmakers, as well as from the president of the AL, who questioned the possibility of Sou filing such a request to amend the bill at the time that it was being discussed and voted upon.
The situation eventually created an imbroglio for the president of the AL, who admitted not knowing exactly how to proceed with such a request. However, the president noted that since the request of Sou had not been submitted at least five days before, it could not be addressed by the plenary.
Ho further noted that, as far as he understood, what could be done at this stage was to vote upon whether the proposal ought to be returned to the 1st Standing Committee for detailed scrutiny.
After the plenary, and analyzing the request that Sou directed to have submitted to the AL earlier that day, Ho replied to the request by the lawmaker, rejecting it “in accordance with articles 9 c) and 107 a), for alleged violation of the article 105,” that is, “because it was considered to be a matter of government policy.”
Now, the lawmaker has presented an appeal against this decision, and in a letter to which the Times had access dated August 14, Sou addresses the president of the AL, explaining the reasons and fundaments of his appeal, noting that he has “filed the Amendment Proposed under articles 1 b), 101 and 106, before the discussion and voting of the Law Proposal in the specialty and, therefore, before the ‘start of the final global voting period,’ as allowed by article 127/ 3,” claiming in this way that the proposal had been submitted in due time and, should have been addressed.
The lawmaker also notes in several points, “The right to file a complaint, such as the right to appeal, is an inalienable right of the lawmakers who know no restriction of the law, provided it is presented within the legal time-limit to produce effect.”
As Sou noted in a statement, “my proposal was to [attribute the right over the] notice for an assembly or protest by citizens, should be given to the Chief Executive and not to the police, since this matter is regarding the granting of the exercise of a fundamental right.”
In the appeal that has now been filed, Sou is requesting that Ho amend his previous decision, “as it is not in accordance with the law,” remarking that the appeal against decisions made by the president of the AL is a right granted to the lawmakers by the Rules of Procedure.
Sou also notes, “it is my understanding, based on the Basic Law, on the Rules of Procedure and many precedent cases, that as a Legislator I do not need permission from the Chief Executive to make an amendment proposal,” recalling as an example, “the Law 2/93/M was [previously] amended back in 2008 through a bill submitted by several well-known legislators without any need for an authorization from the Chief Executive,” not seeing any reason or motive to change such a procedure now.
As he concluded, “my goal is to protect and enrich the rights and interests of the Macau citizens,” for the purpose of which he calls for the fulfillment of law and regulations provisions that grant such rights to all legislators.
In a statement released on Friday, Sou reiterated these concerns to the public, stressing that his actions were only about “guaranteeing the exercise of a fundamental right.”
No Comments