ii.
iii.
iv.
V.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
whereas a court only
exercises
look
jurisdiction u pon application. Likewise а committee is able to into hypothetical questions whereas a court only looks at issues involved in a particular case.
to
Whether the body constitutes a a committee or a court, it should be open to the parties
proceedings in court and to representatives of the NPC and the SAR Government (persumably the Attorney General or any later equivalent) to appear before the body and make
representations.
No determination of the body referred to
referred to above should have retrospective or retroactive effect nor should it the validity of any act bona fide done under any law declared to be invalid as a result of a ruling of the body. Anybody who has been adversely affected by anything done under a law declared to be invalid should have a right of redress as against the SAR Government.
In keeping with the existing common law in Hong Kong, the courts in applying the Basic Law will defer to the PRC executive authority in respect of all declarations as to existing facts which relate to foreign affairs.
The doctrine of stare decisis should remain in force.
Other Views
The view has been expressed that Hong Kong courts should be allowed to interpret all parts of the Basic Law in order to maintain the independence of the judiciary and high autonomy of the SAR.
Views have been recorded that Hong Kong courts can only in the course of adjudicating a case interpret the parts of the Basic Law which deal with the internal self government of the SAR.
Another opinion has been recorded stating that the Hong Kong courts should have jurisdiction on all cases that involve any parts of the Basic Law. But final adjudication on these cases should rest with the Standing Committee of the NPC instead of in the Court of Final Appeal of the SAR.
The view was
was also recorded expressing the worry that giving Hong Kong courts the power of interpreting the Basic Law may infringe upon the sovereignty of China
6 -