The more than 20,000 medical exemption certificates that seven doctors were suspected of spamming were originally scheduled to expire on Wednesday (October 12), but some members of the public filed a judicial review on this in the court.
Judge Gao Haowen of the Court of First Instance of the High Court recently approved the relevant application and issued a temporary injunction order to suspend the execution of the relevant government order. will continue to be in effect.
On the night the court accepted the case (October 10), the Hong Kong government published a "replenishment" in the gazette, in accordance with the "Prevention and Control of Disease (Requirements and Directions) (Business and Premises) Regulations" and the "Prevention and Control of Disease ( The Vaccine Pass) Regulation issued three directions and specifications stating in the form of a note that the exemption certificates issued by the seven medical practitioners were no longer acceptable as "vaccine passes".
However, Judge Gao Haowen believed that a considerable part of the exemption certificate could not be ruled out as being reasonably issued, so he agreed to grant this injunction.
Guo Zhuojian won a small victory in the needle-free paper review case.
(Photo by Zhu Dixin)
The legal basis should be clearly explained
The current Prevention and Control of Disease (Vaccine Pass) Regulation provides that the Secretary for Medical and Health may issue directions in relation to vaccine passes, but does not specify the Secretary's power to cancel a certificate of exemption from specific medical conditions.
At the beginning of the Hong Kong government's announcement, some members of the Legislative Council questioned that the authorities' decision may not have sufficient legal basis, and even criticized the Secretary for Medical and Health, Lo Chongmao, for acting "arbitrary" and undermining the "rule of law".
As for the judgement of the senior officials, it is also pointed out that several press releases issued by the Hong Kong government during the period did not expressly express the source of the legal power to abolish the certificate of immunity.
Similar situations where the legal basis for making decisions about epidemic prevention and control measures is unclear have actually existed in the past two years.
Taking the Compulsory Quarantine of Certain Persons Arriving at Hong Kong Regulation as an example, the provisions stipulate that the Chief Secretary for Administration may designate in writing certain categories of persons to be exempted from entry quarantine and designate or change relevant additional conditions, but the content of the official documents for exempting crew members or other persons from quarantine However, it has never been disclosed to the public, but, like the abolition of the Certificate of Exemption this time, only relies on the government press release to announce the decision.
In addition, on August 8 this year, the number of hotel quarantine days for arrivals was reduced from seven days to three days, but passengers who have arrived in Hong Kong can leave the hotel before the measures take effect on August 12.
The specification issued by the Medical and Health Bureau at that time was exactly the same as the revocation of the exemption certificate, which was to be treated with a footnote, but the relevant provisions did not expressly state the power to change the established quarantine period.
It is understandable that the above-mentioned situations with unclear legal justifications occur during the crisis of the epidemic, but they continue to occur repeatedly long after the regulations have been implemented.
Lu Chongmao, director of the Medical and Health Bureau.
(File photo/Photo by Zhang Haowei)
Legislative remedies should not be neglected
When the Vaccine Pass was legislated, people may not have foreseen the problem of indiscriminate issuance of exemption certificates, but since officials have the "Prevention and Control of Disease Ordinance" to make public health emergency regulations, if the first two weeks Quickly set up new laws or revise old ones to supplement empowerment, or you can avoid the result of this suspension of the ban.
The current predicament occurs only when the Hong Kong government insists on giving priority to using administrative methods to deal with problems.
The recent revision of the legislative agenda by the Hong Kong government has postponed many important bills that the society has reached consensus on, but at least those are legislative projects that involve many new technology issues to be solved, and the progress is more likely to be affected by the results of previous consultations and social opinions.
However, if the epidemic prevention regulations, which are urgent and only minor fixes for the problem, have not stepped up their revision, the Department of Justice, which is responsible for drafting the law, should review its work efficiency.
"We respect the rule of law, and we will do anything that has a legal basis," Chief Executive Li Jiachao said in response to a question before the Executive Council about US criticism of Hong Kong for helping Russia avoid sanctions.
This spirit is correct, but written law can never exhaust all potential special cases, so it is the responsibility of the authorities and parliament to work together to make them perfect.
We must pay attention not only to abiding by the law, but also to update outdated laws as soon as possible, so that they are capable enough to cope with the infinite changes in the world and local society.
The government's legislative work should also be accelerated and effective. The spammy issuance of exempt needle paper reveals the lack of regulation of private doctors
