Sulu Sou watches as lawmakers (including Vong Hin Fai, right) vote on whether to suspend him or not
Vong Hin Fai, one of the lawmakers behind a resolution that would bar “political acts” from being scrutinized by judicial authorities, said over the weekend that the proposal would not seek to encroach on the city’s judicial independence.
The statement was quickly countered by lawmaker Sulu Sou, who accused the Legislative Assembly (AL) of trying to violate well-established legal principles and said the body cannot rule on disputes to which it is a party.
Last week, Sou filed an appeal to the Court of Second Instance for the annulment of his December 4 suspension from the AL on the basis that the actions of the Assembly “violated the rules of procedure and fundamental rights of the appellant.”
Sou’s defense accused the AL of having overstepped a series of procedures, disregarding the Basic Law, the general law and the House Rules over the course of five decisions and deliberations.
But a proposal, authored by Vong and fellow lawmaker Kou Hoi In, argues that, as a “political act”, the suspension of Sulu Sou does not fall under the jurisdiction of Macau courts and cannot be ruled improper as Sou’s defense claims.
The positions taken by Vong and Sou had deepened into a public quarrel by Friday evening, with several other lawmakers, lawyers and political analysts chiding in.
In a message posted on Sulu Sou’s Facebook page on Friday, the young democrat stressed that the bill “is a direct reaction to court action that I have filed […] seeking the annulment of deliberation that suspended my mandate. […] The decision is due to be discussed on the very day that I will undergo trial.”
Sou went on to highlight a conflict of interests in that the AL, as a party to the dispute, ought not to be allowed to rule on it.
“Were one of the parties authorized to interfere with the decision of the courts, the sacred principle of equality before the courts – of the weak and the strong, the rich and the poor – would be watered down,” he advanced.
“The AL would be setting itself to resolve a dispute in which the AL is itself a party, in disrespect for the role of the courts, their autonomy and their authority as adjudicators of disputes. The AL should not seek to behave as both a player and a referee.”
According to several media reports, lawmaker Vong admitted that the proposal was a response to Sou’s appeal. He added that it was necessary to introduce it precisely because of the involvement of the AL in the dispute.
The proposal, which is expected to be discussed by the legislature tomorrow, states in the first of its just two articles that “deliberations of the Legislative Assembly that lead to the suspension or loss of a lawmaker’s mandate are acts of a political nature that are excluded from administrative, fiscal or customs appeal.”
The second article establishes that the measure would have retroactive effects dating back to December 1999, when the MSAR was created. Daniel Beitler
Katchi: a ‘futile’ proposal
THE RESOLUTION presented by lawmakers Vong Hin Fai and Kou Hoi In “is futile, because it states something that is perfectly clear from a legal point of view,” António Katchi told the Times. “The Legislative Assembly is a political body, not an administrative one. It has a political function […] and political acts are excluded from the administrative litigation. According to the legal expert, who is a lecturer at the Macau Polytechnic Institute, it is possible to appeal from administrative acts practiced inside the AL by its president or administrative services and related to the assembly’s staff. Still according to Katchi, this issue shows that “in Macau there is lack of a constitutional court that could assess the constitutionality and legality of a certain type of political acts, inclusively the laws.” Something that “could only be solved by reviewing the Basic Law.”
No Comments