According to what was reported this week by local media, the proposal for amendment of Macau’s Judiciary Organization law establishes that only Chinese native judges, via a so-called definitive appointment, will have jurisdiction to handle and judge cases involving national security matters.
First of all, if true, the mentioned proposal shall be deemed in clear violation of the provisions of the Macau Basic Law as the SAR “constitution” accepts the appointment of overseas judges, without setting any limitations to their capacity to handle any type of court case in Macau. In the eyes of the Macau Basic Law, overseas judges are equal to their (local) peers, holding therefore the same rights and obligations as any other Macau judge irrespective of race, place of origin, religion or colour of skin.
This is somehow a consequence of the so-called ‘one country, two systems’ principle that prevails in Macau until 2049. I understand it may look awkward in the eyes of poorly informed citizens ignoring the fundamentals behind the establishment of the SARs, but it is what it is. The People’s Republic of China decided that the Macau SAR would be under this regime during the 1999-2049 period and that all relevant stakeholders – namely, politicians and legislators – need to understand that international treaties are to be respected and pacts made to fully comply with the contracting parties up to its term.
That said, should an ordinary law set limits to those established under the Basic Law, or is contrary to our fundamental Law, it should be necessary to request an interpretation of the Basic Law from the relevant body in Mainland China, something that as far as I’m aware has never happened in the past.
Anther interesting consequence of this topic is the eventual definition of what constitutes national security. Honestly speaking, I do not understand what this means. What kind of matters should be included under such classification? All matters involving government officials? Matters involving Macau SAR civil servants? Matters involving the SAR at all? Would this cover civil and criminal matters? The concept is so wide and badly defined that I don’t see how it could be included in a legal text that is supposed to be as clear and certain as possible in order to diminish the level of uncertainty.
I must say, however, that I’m getting used to the lack of quality and inexactitude of some of our newly enacted laws. This sort of vagueness doesn’t help at all – especially those who work with the law every day; namely, the judges, despite their provenence.
I trust that before the enactment of the amendments, our honoured legislators, some of whom have a legal background, will be visited in their dreams (and enlightened) by Iustitia, the Roman goddess of Justice, who shall help them understand the importance of following Macau’s Basic Law and the principles imposed therein.
*Lawyer and frequent contributor to MNA
