行政行為還是政治行為？ ──澳門特區終審法院“第61/2017號案”述評

“政治行為不審查”是一項司法原則，但何為“政治行為”是一項充滿未知數的問題。澳門特區終審法院“第61/2017號案”是檢視政治行為如何區別於行政行為的一則案件，亦是檢視“政治行為不審查”司法原則應如何適用的一則案件。案件以所涉行為屬政治行為而不審查以告終，但在行為的定性方面值得商榷。該行為的定性應取決於某些行為不能通過司法解決或不適合司法解決，而非法院無權審查。如果法院無權審查，結論即為無權審查，至於行為可能是政治行為或其他行為無關重要。儘管無權審查與政治行為不審查在程序法上均表現為無管轄權，但在發生機理上並不相同。實際上，先行探討“無權審查”問題，然後將政治行為限定在法院“不能審查”而與“無權審查”相區隔的論證模式，有助於最大程度地對所涉具體規範進行全面充分 的解讀，將問題納入具體的法律制度框架中，以避免單純依賴“政治行為”這一含義模糊的概念而陷入可能的政治理論紛爭或抽象原則辯論之中。

“Political act is not reviewed” is a judicial principle, but what is a “political act” is a question full of uncertainties. “Case of No. 61/2017” of Final Appeal Court of Macao SAR is one that examines how a political act differs and should differ from an administrative act, and also one that examines how this judicial principle should be applied. The case concluded that the act involved was political and not reviewed, but it was debatable in terms of qualitative issue. The qualitative nature of a political act should depend on the fact that certain acts cannot be resolved or are unsuitable for judicial resolution, rather than that the court has no power to review. If the court does not have the power to review, the conclusion is that it has no power to review, and it is irrelevant that the act may be political or otherwise. Although both of them are manifested as lack of jurisdiction in procedural law, the mechanisms of occurrence are different. In fact, firstly discussing the issue of “unauthorized review”, and then limiting the political act to the argument mode of “unable to review”, i.e., separated from “unauthorized review” by the court, will help to maximize the comprehensiveness of interpretation towards the specific norms into a specific legal system framework, and to avoid purely relying on the vague conept of “political act” and getting caught in the possible political theoretical disputes or abstract principle debates.