HONG KONG - The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government on Monday welcomed the Court of Final Appeal ruling upholding its use of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance to bring into force the anti-mask law in early October 2019. 

In a statement issued on Monday evening, the government noted that the CFA upheld the compatibility of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance (ERO) with the Basic Law and the proportionality of the restrictions under the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation (PFCR) or the anti-mask law.

The government noted that the CFA upheld the compatibility of the Emergency Regulations Ordinance with the Basic Law and the proportionality of the restrictions under the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation or the anti-mask law

The government reiterated the CFA's view that, when striking a fair balance between societal and individual interests, "the interests of Hong Kong as a whole should be taken into account since the rule of law itself was being undermined by the actions of masked lawbreakers who, with their identities concealed, were seemingly free to act with impunity".

ALSO READ: HK’s Court of Final Appeal upholds 2019 anti-mask law

The CFA acknowledged that the very nature of the ERO requires giving wide and flexible legislative powers to the executive to deal with emergencies or public dangers quickly and adequately, the government said.

Given that the situations involved emergency or public danger, it should be left to the judgment of the Chief Executive in Council to make regulations which she may consider desirable in the public interest, the government noted.

The court pointed out that such legislative powers are necessary in particular when the Legislative Council may not be able to function and respond promptly enough to emergencies, it added.

ALSO READ: Judgment on mask ban strengthens rule of law

The government also said that while the CFA noted that certain rights are affected by the prohibitions imposed by the PFCR, it emphasized that these rights are not absolute and may be subject to lawful restrictions including the interests of public safety, public order and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The CFA agreed that the preventative and deterrent nature of the PFCR is crucial and the need to prevent the deterioration of peaceful gatherings into violence is an integral part of its legitimate aim, the government said.

READ MORE: Anti-mask law 'ultimately protects people's rights'