摘要： 香港“郑家纯等诉立法会”案的判决涉及“香港立法会的调查委员会是否有权传召当事人”这一颇具争议的问题。针对当事人提出的“立法会调查委员会越权”的主张，在进入司法审查后，法院面对的是如何选择具体的方法来进行审查。虽然从文本来看，香港《基本法》并没有明确赋予立法会的调查委员会以传召当事人的权力，但法院采取合宪性推定方法，认为《基本法》没有禁止立法会通过调查委员会来行使证人传召权，并判决立法会的调查委员会不存在越权情形。这种对立法机关持谦抑姿态的方法论在一定程度上超越了形式文本，在本质上建基于《基本法》架构下国家不同权力间的关系维度，具有宪法上的正当性，并且对当下中国宪法方法的建构具有启示意义。当然，香港立法会调查权的行使必须以《基本法》为依据，以香港特殊的行政主导制为基础，这又从另一面体现了立法权对行政权的谦抑。

Abstract: There are many controversies over the LegCo Powers Case regarding whether the select committee of HongKong Legislative Council has the power to summon witnesses to give relevant evidence. The challenger, based onthe text, argued that Hong Kong Basic Law does not delegate the power of summoning to the select committee,however, the court rejected it, following the presumption of constitutionality, and argued that the Basic Law doesnot forbid the select committee to do so. This, to some degree, reflects the deference of the courts to the legislative council. Judicial deference has its constitutional legitimacy in modem constitutionalism, and is also meaningful in Chinese context, as China still has to face the relationship between the judicial review power and its legislative power based on democracy, both in theory and practice.

Key words: The LegCo Powers Case, Power Deference, Presumption of Constitutionality, Basic Law