Thursday, November 29, 2012

Involuntary Commitment: Ankang Regs vs Mental Health Laws


Security monitoring inside Tianjin’s ankang hospital. Source: Tianjin Municipal Public Security Bureau Ankang Hospital

China’s new Mental Health Law, passed by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee in October and effective May 1, 2013, has been welcomed by many as a major step forward in the protection of the rights of individuals with mental illness. Of particular note are provisions requiring that patients facing involuntary commitment in psychiatric hospitals be given the opportunity for independent review of their cases and that mechanisms for appealing involuntary commitment be established.

Some remain concerned, however, about the potential for continued use of abusive psychiatric commitment against petitioners, dissidents, and others deemed to threaten China’s social or political order. This is because the new law exempts ankang hospitals from many of its provisions.

Ankang hospitals, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Public Security, are police-run facilities intended to provide compulsory medical treatment to persons diagnosed with mental illness who have committed serious crimes but are exempted from criminal responsibility under the law. As of 2010, there were 22 ankang hospitals located in 18 Chinese provinces, and the Ministry of Public Security had lobbied for the construction of additional hospitals to meet rising needs. During their long history in China, ankang hospitals are known to have been used to treat “political maniacs” and others holding dissident views—a practice modeled on one used widely by the Soviet Union.

As a result of a new section dedicated to compulsory medical treatment that was added to the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) in March (translated below), new restrictions will be formally imposed on police discretion to carry out involuntary psychiatric commitment. Under these provisions, which will take effect on January 1, 2013, police recommendations regarding commitment will have to go through two levels of external scrutiny: undergoing review by the procuratorate before reaching the court, which will have sole authority to make decisions on involuntary psychiatric commitment for those who have committed serious offenses but are exempt from criminal responsibility under the law.

Until now, regulation of involuntary commitment in ankang hospitals has been governed primarily by rules enacted by local government in locations where these facilities are established. As internal institutional regulations, the procedures are not clearly subject to review by procuratorates or the court. Local regulations also vary considerably in terms of their level of detail and the degree to which they protect individual rights.

Consider, for example, two sets of commitment measures from Tianjin Municipality and Xi’an, Shaanxi Province (translated below). The Tianjin regulations, enacted in 1991 and amended in 2010, are typical of rules enacted in other cities throughout China during the 1990s and lack the mechanisms of the Xi’an measures, enacted in 2011, aimed at curbing arbitrary psychiatric commitment. For example, the Xi’an measures explicitly exempt certain categories of individuals from involuntary commitment, give persons facing commitment clear rights to challenge the decisions made against them, and require ankang hospitals to carry out periodic evaluations.

Clearly, the relatively progressive Xi’an measures anticipate the more rights-protective provisions of the new CPL, which aims to limit arbitrary police authority and establish a more uniform process for involuntary psychiatric commitments carried out within the criminal justice setting. The success of these goals awaits actual enforcement. Drafts of implementation rules being considered by the Supreme People’s Court and recently passed by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate suggest a seriousness about establishing mechanisms to prevent abusive and arbitrary commitment of individuals who are healthy or who do not pose any danger to society. The Ministry of Public Security has yet to publicize its own relevant regulations, but once the revised CPL and the new public security regulations take effect, local ankang regulations will almost certainly undergo substantial updates.



Criminal Procedure Law Excerpt: click to expand

[Criminal Procedure Law Excerpt]

Chapter 4: Procedures for Compulsory Medical Treatment of Mentally Ill Persons Excluded from Criminal Liability in Accordance with the Law

     Article 284: Where a mentally ill person commits violent acts that endanger public security or seriously endanger the personal safety of citizens and has been determined through statutory procedures to be excluded from criminal liability in accordance with the law, if he or she has the potential to continue endangering society, he or she may be subject to compulsory medical treatment.

     Article 285: According to this chapter, decisions to subject a mentally ill person to compulsory medical treatment shall be made by people’s courts.
     If a public security organ discovers that a mentally ill person meets the conditions for compulsory medical treatment, it shall make a suggestion for compulsory medical treatment in writing and submit it to the people’s procuratorate. Where the people’s procuratorate finds, either at the [suggestion] of the public security organ or during the process of pre-prosecution review, that a mentally ill person meets the conditions for compulsory medical treatment, it shall submit an application for compulsory medical treatment to the people’s court. Where the people’s court finds during the hearing of a case that a defendant meets the conditions for compulsory medical treatment, it may issue a decision to impose compulsory medical treatment.
     Where a mentally ill person has committed an act of violence, the public security organ may impose temporary, protective restrictive measures [upon that person] before the people’s court [issues] a decision on compulsory medical treatment.

     Article 286: After the people’s court accepts an application for compulsory medical treatment, it shall form a collegiate bench to review [the application].
     Where a people’s court reviews a case involving compulsory medical treatment, it shall notify the legal representative for the subject of the application or the defendant to appear in court. If the subject of the application or the defendant has not engaged legal counsel, the people’s court shall notify a legal aid agency to assign a lawyer to provide legal assistance.

     Article 287: Where, in the course of its review, the people’s court [finds that] the subject of the application or the defendant meets the conditions for compulsory medical treatment, it shall issue a decision for compulsory medical treatment within one month.
     Where the person subject to a decision for compulsory medical treatment, the victim, or their [respective] legal representatives or immediate relatives do not accept the decision for compulsory medical treatment, they may apply to the people’s court at the next higher level for reconsideration.

     Article 288: Facilities for compulsory medical treatment shall periodically carry out diagnostic evaluations of persons receiving compulsory medical treatment. Where there is no longer any risk to personal safety and it is no longer necessary to continue compulsory medical treatment, a facility shall promptly recommend revocation and report to the people’s court that made the decision on compulsory medical treatment for approval.
     Persons receiving compulsory medical treatment and their immediate relatives have the right to apply for revocation of [said] treatment.

     Article 289: People’s procuratorates shall oversee decisions on and enforcement of compulsory medical treatment.


Chinese Source(原文): 
[刑事诉讼法摘选]
http://www.china.com.cn/policy/txt/2012-03/18/content_24922812_28.htm
Click on icon to expand

[刑事诉讼法摘选]

第四章 依法不负刑事责任的精神病人的强制医疗程序

        第二百八十四条 实施暴力行为,危害公共安全或者严重危害公民人身安全,经法定程序鉴定依法不负刑事责任的精神病人,有继续危害社会可能的,可以予以强制医疗。

        第二百八十五条 根据本章规定对精神病人强制医疗的,由人民法院决定。
        公安机关发现精神病人符合强制医疗条件的,应当写出强制医疗意见书,移送人民检察院。对于公安机关移送的或者在审查起诉过程中发现的精神病人符合强制医疗条件的,人民检察院应当向人民法院提出强制医疗的申请。人民法院在审理案件过程中发现被告人符合强制医疗条件的,可以作出强制医疗的决定。
        对实施暴力行为的精神病人,在人民法院决定强制医疗前,公安机关可以采取临时的保护性约束措施。

        第二百八十六条 人民法院受理强制医疗的申请后,应当组成合议庭进行审理。
        人民法院审理强制医疗案件,应当通知被申请人或者被告人的法定代理人到场。被申请人或者被告人没有委托诉讼代理人的,人民法院应当通知法律援助机构指派律师为其提供法律帮助。

        第二百八十七条 人民法院经审理,对于被申请人或者被告人符合强制医疗条件的,应当在一个月以内作出强制医疗的决定。
        被决定强制医疗的人、被害人及其法定代理人、近亲属对强制医疗决定不服的,可以向上一级人民法院申请复议。

        第二百八十八条 强制医疗机构应当定期对被强制医疗的人进行诊断评估。对于已不具有人身危险性,不需要继续强制医疗,应当及时提出解除意见,报决定强制医疗的人民法院批准。
        被强制医疗的人及其近亲属有权申请解除强制医疗。

收起中文部分


Collapse




Tianjin Measures [1991] No. 47: click to expand

Tianjin Measures for Commitment, Treatment, and Management of Mentally Ill Persons Who Endanger Social Order

[Tianjin] People’s Government Order (1991) No. 47

(Approved by the [Tianjin] People’s Government on December 8, 1991, and amended in accordance with the Decision on Amending Certain Municipal Government Regulations passed at the 59th Standing Committee meeting of the [Tianjin] People’s Government on November 8, 2010.)

     Article 1: In order to strengthen protective custody, management, and treatment of mentally ill persons who endanger social order; to protect social order; to safeguard the lives, property, and safety of the people; and protect the lawful rights and interests of mentally ill persons; these measures are hereby enacted in accordance with the relevant national regulations and in combination with the actual circumstances in this municipality.

     Article 2: Any mentally ill person who carries out one of the following acts, whether he or she is from this city or an outsider who has come to this city, shall be compulsorily committed for treatment by the municipal public security bureau’s ankang hospital:

  1. Murder, arson, rape, setting explosions, or other acts;
  2. Serious disruption of official work order at party, government, or military organs [or] of the production or work order of enterprises;
  3. Serious disruption of public order or endangering of public safety;
  4. Other [acts] that affect social stability and cause serious consequences;
  5. Having once committed one of the aforementioned acts, again showing an obvious onset of symptoms after release [from compulsory treatment] following remission of symptoms.

     Article 3: The ankang hospital of the municipal public security bureau is the institution of the municipality dedicated to compulsory commitment for treatment of mentally ill persons who endanger social order. It has the dual functions of public order management and treatment under protective custody.
     The ankang hospital provides admitted mentally ill persons with compulsory treatment under protective custody according to the principles of: management in accordance with the law, scientific treatment, integrated governance, and service on behalf of social order and the patient.

     Article 4: Where it is necessary to place a mentally ill person covered under Article 2 of these measures under compulsory commitment for treatment, the branch (county) public security bureau shall report the case and, following arrangement of a mental illness forensic medical evaluation by the ankang hospital, conduct admission formalities pursuant to the issue of a “Notice of Hospitalization for Commitment and Treatment of a Mentally Ill Person Who Endangers Social Order” by the ankang hospital. Under special, emergency situations where it is necessary to immediately carry out compulsory commitment for treatment, a mental illness forensic medical evaluation shall be carried out promptly after commitment and intake formalities conducted after the fact.

     Article 5: With respect to the medical expenses of hospitalized mentally ill persons subjected to compulsory commitment for treatment: for those with work units, [the expenses] shall be handled in accordance with labor insurance and public health service regulations; for those employees who are under labor contract, [the expenses] shall be handled in accordance with relevant national regulations; for those without fixed employment or income, a guardian shall assume responsibility; where there is no guardian, the civil affairs department shall assume responsibility.

     Article 6: A mentally ill person who has been subjected to compulsory commitment for treatment may be discharged after obtaining approval from the ankang hospital if he or she has been cured through treatment, his or her symptoms have stabilized, and he or she is basically no longer able to endanger social order or has other serious illnesses.

     Article 7: Where a mentally ill person receives approval to be discharged, his or her guardian or work unit shall conduct discharge formalities in accordance with the notification of the ankang hospital. Where discharge is refused without legitimate reason, the branch (county) public security bureau that originally reported hospitalization for the compulsory commitment for treatment shall order a guardian to retrieve [the person refusing discharge]. Where there is no guardian and no fixed employment or income, the civil affairs department shall take custody and arrange for placement.

     Article 8: When a mentally ill person dies during the period of compulsory commitment for treatment, an evaluation of [the cause of] death shall be performed and notice given to the guardian or work unit to go to the ankang hospital to handle post-mortem affairs. Where there is refusal without legitimate reason or there is no guardian and no work unit, the body of the deceased shall be handled by the ankang hospital in accordance with relevant national and local regulations.

     Article 9: During the period of compulsory commitment for treatment, the guardian or relatives of a mentally ill person shall actively cooperate with treatment. Guardians or relatives who go to the hospital to create serious disruptions or disturb order shall be dealt with by the public security organ in accordance with the law and in light of the seriousness of the circumstances.

     Article 10: The public-order units of each branch (county) public security bureau and the security units of enterprises shall, under the direction of the ankang hospital, implement prevention-responsibility systems aimed at mentally ill persons who endanger social order and implement measures for custody, control, and management of mentally ill persons who endanger social order.

     Article 11: A mentally ill person’s guardian, work unit, and local residents’ committee or village committee shall strengthen protective custody over the mentally ill person, protect his or her personal and property rights and other lawful rights and interests, and prevent the mentally ill person from causing trouble and endangering social order.

     Article 12: These measures take effect from the day of announcement. At that time, the “Several Temporary Provisions for Custody and Management of Aggressive Maniacs [sic],” approved for implementation by the Tianjin People’s Committee on August 9, 1965, shall cease to be effective.

Chinese Source(原文): 
天津市收治管理危害社会治安精神病人办法
http://www.tjzb.gov.cn/system/2011/02/18/000251112.shtml
Click on icon to expand

天津市收治管理危害社会治安精神病人办法

市人民政府令1991年第47号

(1991年12月8日经市人民政府批准 根据2010年11月8日市人民政府第59次常务会议《关于修改部分市政府规章的决定》修正)

        第一条 为加强对危害社会治安精神病人的监护、管理和治疗,维护社会秩序,保障人民生命财产安全,保护精神病人的合法权益,根据国家有关规定,结合本市实际情况,制定本办法。

        第二条 凡本市及外地流入本市有下列行为之一的精神病人,由市公安局安康医院予以强制收治:

  1. 实施杀人、放火、强奸、爆炸等行为的;
  2. 严重扰乱党政军机关办公秩序和企事业单位生产、工作秩序的;
  3. 严重扰乱公共秩序,危害公共安全的;
  4. 其他影响社会安定,造成严重后果的;
  5. 曾实施上述各种行为,病情缓解出院后,又有明显发病症状的。

        第三条 市公安局安康医院是本市强制收治危害社会治安精神病人的专门机构,具有治安管理和监护医疗的双重职能。
        安康医院按照依法管理、科学治疗、管治结合、为社会治安和病人服务的原则,对住院精神病人实行强制性监护治疗。

        第四条 本办法第二条所列精神病人需强制收治的,由公安分(县)局申报,经安康医院组织精神病司法医学鉴定后,凭安康医院签发的《收治危害社会治安精神病人入院通知书》,办理入院手续。遇有特殊紧急情况,需立即强制收治的,收治后应及时做出精神病司法医学鉴定,并补办入院手续。

        第五条 强制收治入院精神病人的医疗费用,有工作单位的,按劳保、公费医疗规定办理;实行劳动合同制的职工,按国家有关规定办理;无固定职业和收入的,申报由监护人承担,无监护人的,由民政部门承担。

        第六条 强制收治的精神病人,经治疗痊愈的、病情缓解稳定的、基本丧失危害社会治安能力的或有其他严重疾患的,经安康医院批准可以出院。

        第七条 经批准出院的精神病人,由监护人或工作单位,按照安康医院的通知办理出院手续。无正当理由拒不出院的,由原申报强制收治入院的公安分(县)局责令监护人领回。无监护人又无固定职业和收入的,由民政部门收容安置。

        第八条 精神病人在强制收治期间死亡,应当做出死亡鉴定,并通知监护人或其工作单位到安康医院办理善后事宜。没有正当理由拒不办理或者无监护人又无工作单位的,死者尸体由安康医院按国家及本市有关规定处理。

        第九条 精神病人在强制收治期间,其监护人或亲属应积极配合治疗。监护人或亲属到医院寻衅滋事、扰乱秩序的,由公安机关视情节轻重依法处理。

        第十条 各公安分(县)局的治安部门和企事业单位的保卫部门,应当在安康医院指导下,对危害社会治安的精神病人实行防治工作责任制,落实对危害社会治安精神病人的监护控制及管理措施。

        第十一条 精神病人的监护人,精神病人的所在单位和住地的居民委员会、村民委员会应当加强对精神病人的监护,保护其人身和财产等合法权益,并预防精神病人肇事,危害社会治安。

        第十二条 本办法自公布之日起施行。一九六五年八月九日经天津市人民委员会批准执行的《关于收容管理武疯病人的几项暂行规定》同时废止。

收起中文部分


Collapse



Xi'an Order No.93: click to expand

Xi’an People’s Government Order
No. 93

     The “Xi’an Measures on Commitment for Treatment of Persons with Mental Disorders Who Seriously Endanger Social Safety” were passed at the 153rd meeting of the 14th [Xi’an] People’s Government Standing Committee on July 11, 2011. They are hereby published and will become effective on August 30, 2011.

Mayor Chen Baogen
July 22, 2011

Xi’an Measures on Commitment for Treatment of Persons with Mental Disorders Who Seriously Endanger Social Safety

     Article 1: In order to strengthen [the system of] commitment for treatment and the management of persons with mental disorders who seriously endanger social safety, to safeguard social public order and public safety, and protect citizen’s personal rights and public and private property, these measures are enacted in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the People’s Police Law of the PRC, and other laws and regulations and in combination with the actual circumstances in this city.

     Article 2: These measures are applicable to the commitment for treatment and management of persons with mental disorders who seriously endanger social safety within the administrative region of this city.

     Article 3: Commitment for treatment of persons with mental disorders who seriously endanger social safety shall be incorporated into the city’s plan for mental health work. The funds necessary for undertaking commitment for treatment work are to be included in the budget.

     Article 4: The public security organ is the competent authority with respect to commitment for treatment of persons with mental disorders who seriously endanger social safety and is responsible for arranging the implementation of these measures. Departments responsible for the administration of health, civil affairs, human resources and social insurance, finances, and other matters, along with mass organizations such as the China Disabled Persons’ Federation, shall, in accordance with their own functional responsibilities, assist with the proper commitment for treatment of persons with mental disorders who seriously endanger social safety.
     The city ankang hospital is responsible for carrying out clinical treatment and management of those persons with mental disorders who seriously endanger social safety [and] that the public security organ has decided to commit for treatment.

     Article 5: Where a person with a mental disorder meets both of the following conditions, the public security organ at or above the county level shall decide to commit that person for treatment:

  1. While unable to distinguish or unable to control his or her actions, commits an act that seriously endangers society and is suspected of a crime [but] is confirmed by an evaluation in accordance with statutory procedures not to bear criminal responsibility;
  2. Does not have a guardian or has a guardian who lacks the ability to look after [him or her], or, although having a guardian, is a person with severe mental disorders who could potentially continue to endanger society if commitment for treatment is not imposed.

     Article 6: [Where a person with a mental disorder] meets any of the following conditions, the public security organ may not issue a decision to commit for treatment:

  1. Suffers from a serious contagious illness;
  2. Suffers from a serious, life-threatening physical illness;
  3. Is no longer able to endanger society;
  4. Is pregnant or nursing one’s own infant under the age of one;
  5. Meets other conditions for which laws, regulations, or rules provide that it is inappropriate to issue a decision to commit for treatment.

     Article 7: Where a public security organ at or above the county level makes a decision to commit for treatment, it shall produce a written commitment decision and notify the guardian of the person being committed for treatment as well as the police station in that person’s place of household registration. Where it is impossible to determine the identity of the person being committed, notification shall be made in a timely manner after [the identity] is determined.

     Article 8: Where the person being committed for treatment or his or her guardian does not accept the commitment decision made by the public security organ, application may be made for administrative reconsideration in accordance with the law or an administrative lawsuit may be filed.

     Article 9: The public security organ that issues the decision to commit for treatment shall take the commitment decision and other relevant documents and escort the person being committed for treatment to the city ankang hospital to conduct admission formalities.

     Article 10: After hospitalization, where a person committed for treatment meets any of the conditions listed in Article 6 of these measures, the city ankang hospital shall suspend treatment and notify the public security organ that issued the commitment decision to collect the person committed for treatment and deliver him or her to the care of his or her guardian or transfer him or her to another relevant medical facility for treatment. In urgent situations where it is impossible to give timely notification, the city ankang hospital may directly transfer the person to another medical facility and promptly notify the public security organ that made the decision to commit for treatment.
     During the period in which commitment [at the ankang hospital] is suspended, the public security organ that issued the commitment decision is responsible for supervising the person that was committed for treatment. Once the conditions necessitating suspension of commitment cease to exist, the public security organ that issued the commitment decision shall immediately return the committed person to the city ankang hospital to continue to receive treatment.

     Article 11: The city ankang hospital shall respect and protect the lawful rights and interests of persons committed for treatment and ensure their safety; discrimination against and humiliation and abuse of persons committed for treatment is prohibited.

     Article 12: In carrying out commitment for treatment work, the city ankang hospital shall follow the technical specifications and operational procedures for medical treatment as established by the health administration authorities and conduct periodic assessments of the mental state of persons committed for treatment and prepare assessment records.

     Article 13: Where the condition of a person committed for treatment shows obvious improvement and it is no longer necessary to continue treatment, the city ankang hospital shall produce a notice revoking commitment for treatment and deliver it to the public security organ that issued the commitment decision.
     Within seven days of receiving the notice, the public security organ that issued the commitment decision shall meet with the guardian of the person committed for treatment to conduct discharge formalities. Where there is no guardian or the guardian refuses to conduct the formalities, the public security organ that issued the commitment decision shall conduct the discharge formalities.

     Article 14: Where a person committed for treatment dies while hospitalized, the city ankang hospital shall produce a death certificate and the public security organ that issued the commitment decision shall notify the person’s guardian to handle post-mortem affairs.
     Where the guardian does not agree with the cause of death, he or she may appoint a body with the appropriate qualifications to carry out an evaluation of the death. If the guardian disagrees with the conclusion of the evaluation, he or she may apply for a re-evaluation in accordance with the law.
     Where the guardian does not agree with the cause of death and does not appoint [anyone to conduct] an evaluation, the public security organ that issued the commitment decision shall arrange for an evaluation to be carried out, complete a death notice, and notify the guardian to retrieve the body.
     Where the guardian refuses to retrieve the body within the stipulated period of time, the public security organ that issued the commitment decision shall, after taking photos [of the body], handle the matter in accordance with the law.

     Article 15: Treatment expenses incurred by the city ankang hospital for patients committed for treatment in accordance with Article 5 of these measures, as well as mental illness treatment expenses incurred during [the patient’s] treatment period at other medical facilities when commitment for treatment is suspended in accordance with Article 10 of these measures, shall be handled according to the following provisions:

  1. For [patients who are] participants in the urban worker basic medical insurance and urban resident medical insurance schemes, [expenses] shall be handled according to the relevant regulations concerning the urban worker basic medical insurance and urban resident medical insurance schemes;
  2. For [patients who are] employees of work units that do not participate in the urban worker basic medical insurance scheme, expenses are to be assumed by their work unit;
  3. For [patients who are] participants in the new-style rural cooperative health insurance scheme, [expenses] shall be handled according to the relevant regulations concerning the new-style rural cooperative health insurance scheme.

     Where none of the aforementioned [payment] channels are applicable to the medical treatment expenses of a person committed for treatment, or where one of the aforementioned [payment] channels applies but there is a portion that is not covered, responsibility for [such expenses] shall be assumed by the patient or his or her guardian. Where [these parties] are truly unable to cover [the expenses], the public security organ that issued the commitment decision or the relevant medical facility shall report to the finance authority at the same administrative level and resolve the matter in accordance with relevant policies.

     Article 16: The public security organ shall recommend that inpatient treatment at an appropriate medical facility be sought by persons with mental disorders who, while unable to distinguish or control their own actions, violate public order management and, without hospitalization and treatment, will continue to endanger public safety or the personal safety of others or disturb public order, as well as those persons with mental disorders for whom, under Article 6 of these measures, a commitment decision cannot be made.

     Article 17: After a person who has been committed for treatment is discharged, the police station and his or her local mental health agency or community health service institution shall establish cooperative relations with his or her family and jointly carry out proper follow-up treatment and rehabilitation work.

     Article 18: Public security organs at all administrative levels shall, in conjunction with township or town people’s governments or sub-district offices, register persons with mental disorders who seriously endanger social safety within their jurisdictions and establish joint management mechanisms to prevent the occurrence of acts that seriously endanger social safety.

     Article 19: Abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, or self-seeking misconduct by personnel of the public security organs or city ankang hospital shall be subject to administrative punishment by their work unit or a superior responsible authority; if [their conduct] constitutes a crime, criminal responsibility shall be pursued in accordance with the law.

     Article 20: These measures take effect from August 30, 2011. At that time, the “Xi’an Measures on Compulsory Commitment for Treatment of Mentally Ill Persons Who Seriously Endanger Social Safety” (Gov’t Notice [1997] No. 7) issued by the [Xi’an] People’s Government on January 9, 1997, will cease to be effective.

Chinese Source(原文): 
西安市人民政府令 第93号
http://www.xa.gov.cn/ptl/def/def/index_1121_2560_ci_trid_9963.html
Click on icon to expand

西安市人民政府令
第 93 号

        《西安市收治严重危害社会安全精神障碍患者办法》已经2011年7月11日市政府14届153次常务会议通过,现予公布,自2011年8月30日起施行。

市长 陈宝根
二〇一一年七月二十二日

西安市收治严重危害社会安全精神障碍患者办法

        第一条 为了加强严重危害社会安全精神障碍患者的收治和管理,维护社会治安秩序和公共安全,保护公民人身权利和公私财产,根据《中华人民共和国刑法》、《中华人民共和国人民警察法》等法律、法规的规定,结合本市实际,制定本办法。

        第二条 本市行政区域内对严重危害社会安全精神障碍患者的收治及其管理,适用本办法。

        第三条 严重危害社会安全精神障碍患者收治工作应当纳入全市精神卫生工作规划。开展收治工作所需经费纳入财政预算。

        第四条 公安机关是严重危害社会安全精神障碍患者收治工作的主管机关,负责组织本办法的实施。卫生、民政、人力资源和社会保障、财政等行政主管部门和残联等人民团体,按照各自职责,协同做好严重危害社会安全精神障碍患者的收治工作。
        市安康医院负责对公安机关作出收治决定的严重危害社会安全精神障碍患者进行治疗和管理。

        第五条 精神障碍患者同时具有下列情形的,由县级以上公安机关作出决定对其进行收治:

  1. 在不能辨认或者不能控制自己行为的时候实施严重危害社会的行为,涉嫌犯罪,经法定程序鉴定确认,不负刑事责任的;
  2. 无监护人,或者有监护人但监护人无能力看管,或者虽有监护人但不进行收治可能会继续危害社会的重性精神障碍患者。

        第六条 有下列情形之一的,公安机关不得作出收治决定:

  1. 患有严重传染性疾病的;
  2. 患有严重躯体疾病危及生命的;
  3. 丧失继续危害社会安全能力的;
  4. 怀孕或哺乳自己不满一周岁婴儿的;
  5. 法律、法规和规章规定不宜作出收治决定的其他情形。

        第七条 县级以上公安机关作出收治决定,应当出具收治决定书,并通知被收治人员的监护人及其户籍所在地公安机关派出机构。无法确认被收治人员身份的,应当在查明后及时通知。

        第八条 被收治人员或者其监护人对公安机关作出的收治决定不服的,可以依法申请行政复议或者提起行政诉讼。

        第九条 作出收治决定的公安机关应当持收治决定书及其他相关材料,护送被收治人员到市安康医院办理入院手续。

        第十条 被收治人员入院后出现本办法第六条所列情形之一的,市安康医院应当中止收治,并通知作出收治决定的公安机关将被收治人员送交其监护人看护或者转至其他有关医疗机构治疗。情况紧急无法及时通知的,由市安康医院直接将其转至其他医疗机构,并及时通知作出收治决定的公安机关。
        中止收治期间,被收治人员的监管工作由作出收治决定的公安机关负责。被收治人员中止收治的情形消失后,作出收治决定的公安机关应当立即将其送回市安康医院,继续接受治疗。

        第十一条 市安康医院应当尊重和保护被收治人员的合法权益,保障被收治人员的安全,不得歧视、侮辱、虐待被收治人员。

        第十二条 市安康医院在收治工作中应当执行卫生行政主管部门制定的医疗技术规范和操作规程,并定期对被收治人员进行精神状态评估,制作评估记录。

        第十三条 被收治人员病情显著好转,不需要继续治疗的,市安康医院应当向作出收治决定的公安机关出具解除收治的通知书。
        作出收治决定的公安机关应当在接到通知书后七日内会同其监护人办理出院手续;无监护人或者监护人拒绝办理的,由作出收治决定的公安机关办理出院手续。

        第十四条 被收治人员住院期间死亡的,由市安康医院出具死亡诊断证明,并由作出收治决定的公安机关通知其监护人办理善后事宜。
        监护人对死亡原因有异议的,可以委托具有相应资质的机构进行死亡鉴定。监护人对鉴定结论有异议时,可以依法申请重新鉴定。
        监护人对死亡原因有异议又不委托鉴定的,由作出收治决定的公安机关组织进行鉴定,填写死亡通知书,通知监护人认领尸体。
        监护人在规定期限内拒不认领尸体的,由作出收治决定的公安机关拍照后依法予以处理。

        第十五条 市安康医院按照本办法第五条规定收治病人的治疗费用,以及按照本办法第十条规定中止收治的人员在其他医疗机构治疗期间所产生的精神疾病治疗费用,按照下列规定执行:

  1. 参加城镇职工基本医疗保险和城镇居民医疗保险的,按照城镇职工基本医疗保险和城镇居民医疗保险的有关规定执行;
  2. 未参加城镇职工基本医疗保险的单位职工,由其所在单位负担;
  3. 参加新型农村合作医疗保险的,按照新型农村合作医疗保险的有关规定执行。

        被收治人员的医疗费用无前款所列负担渠道或者有前款所列负担渠道之一但不足的部分,由其本人或者监护人负担;确实无力负担的,由作出收治决定的公安机关或者有关医疗机构报同级财政部门按相关政策予以解决。

        第十六条 精神障碍患者在不能辨认或者控制自己行为时,有违反治安管理行为,不住院治疗会继续危害公共安全或者他人人身安全、扰乱公共秩序的,以及按照本办法第六条规定不能作出收治决定的精神障碍患者,公安机关应当建议其到相应的医疗机构住院治疗。

        第十七条 被收治人员出院后,公安机关派出机构以及其所在地的精神卫生机构、社区医疗服务机构应当与其家庭建立合作关系,共同做好后续治疗康复工作。

        第十八条 各级公安机关应当会同乡、镇人民政府或者街道办事处,对辖区内严重危害社会安全的精神障碍患者进行登记,建立共同管理机制,防止严重危害社会安全行为的发生。

        第十九条 公安机关及市安康医院的工作人员滥用职权、玩忽职守、徇私舞弊的,由其所在单位或上级主管部门给予行政处分;构成犯罪的,依法追究刑事责任。

        第二十条 本办法自2011年8月30日起施行。市人民政府1997年1月9日发布的《西安市强制收治严重危害社会安全精神病人办法》(市政发〔1997〕7号)同时废止。

收起中文部分


Collapse

Monday, November 19, 2012

Chinese State Security Arrests Stay High, Trials Soar

In 2011, the number of arrests and indictments for “endangering state security” (ESS) in China remained high, while ESS trial numbers broke new ground, according to China Law Yearbook. The official compendium states that 930 individuals were arrested and 974 were indicted on ESS charges (see Figure 1). Both figures remained well above pre-2008 averages despite double-digit declines. Arrests fell 11 percent year-on-year and indictments fell 20 percent—in lock step with Dui Hua estimates published in March. The subset of concluded first-instance trials that includes ESS leapt 96 percent to 1,314 trials, the highest volume since ESS entered China’s criminal code in 1998.

Dui Hua’s Political Prisoner Database includes information on 25 people convicted on ESS charges in 2011. Many ESS trials are closed on the grounds that they involve state secrets and the publication of verdicts is strictly controlled, making it difficult to obtain information on individual cases. Crimes in the ESS category include “subversion,” “splittism,” and their incitement.


Figure 1. Arrests and Indictments for Endangering State Security in China, 1998-2011

Among those convicted were Memetjan Abduqadir and Tursunjan Ablimit, who in 2002 set up a foundation to serve Uyghur students in impoverished areas of Xinjiang; dissidents like Xue Mingkai (薛明凯)—who had been diagnosed with mental illness—Liu Xianbin (刘贤斌), Chen Wei (陈伟), and Chen Xi (陈西), who were all jailed following online calls for Jasmine Revolution in China; Li Nanhang (李南航) and Sun Tianxi (孙天西), who were convicted in separate cases for allegedly organizing political parties, one of which only existed online; Falun Gong practitioners Wang Guangying (王光英) and Zhang Xiuling (張秀玲); Tibetan writer Tashi Rabten and Tibetan rights activist Kalsang Tsultrim—a number of other Tibetans were reported detained and convicted during the year but sentencing information is not available; and Lü Jiaping (吕嘉平)—the oldest person on the list, at age 71—and Jin Andi (金安迪), who published online articles critical of Communist Party elder Jiang Zemin.

Although there are only two names of Uyghurs convicted of ESS in 2011 in the database, this group is known to account for a high percentage of those convicted of ESS. According to official statistics, 414 ESS trials (including first-instance and appellate trials) were held in Xinjiang last year.

Figuring for Trials 

The reason for the disparate trends in the number of ESS trials versus arrests and indictments is unclear but is likely due to a combination of a decline in the number of defendants per trial and case backlogs.[*] Since 2007, the average number of individuals involved in each case involving arrest or indictment has declined markedly (see Figure 2). Backlogs, i.e., instances where an individual’s arrest or indictment does not occur in the same year his/her trial, are likely since the gears of Chinese criminal justice often turn slowly when processing ESS cases. This is because these cases are commonly classified as either “complex” or “sensitive” and sometimes require additional investigation to overcome issues of insufficient evidence. For example, Li Nanhang and Liu Xianbin were arrested in May and July of 2010, respectively, but were not convicted until March 2011.


Figure 2. Change in Number of Persons per Case, 1999-2011

On average, there were no more than 600 ESS arrests or indictments per year between 1998 and 2007. These figures more than doubled in 2008 due in large part to a crackdown on Tibetans and Uyghurs—often the targets of “splittism” charges—particularly after the uprising in Lhasa in March 2008, and more generalized efforts to ensure that dissenting voices did not tarnish the Beijing Olympics.

* Note: There is also a chance that there was an increase in the number of trials for dereliction of military duty, which Dui Hua believes China Law Yearbook lumps together with ESS crimes under the category “other,” but such an increase would be unlikely to have much impact on the whole. Although trial statistics are not disaggregated, indictment statistics have consistently indicated that dereliction of military duty accounts for less than 1 percent of indictments when placed in a separate category with only ESS. ^

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Chongqing Court Overrules RTL Sentence for Internet Speech


Fang Hong holding the administrative verdict outside of the Chongqing No. 3 Intermediate People's Court. Photo credit: nfpeople.com

Fang Hong served one year of “reeducation through labor” (RTL) for online expression, but after his release in April 2012, he successfully challenged his detention. In the administrative verdict (translated below), the court rules that the RTL decision against Fang was illegal on both substantive and procedural grounds.

Police detained Fang in April 2011 after the civil servant used his microblog to post scatological comments criticizing then Chongqing Party Secretary Bo Xilai and police chief Wang Lijun. Police initially decided to reprimand Fang with 10 days of administrative detention but, on the same day, reneged and issued a decision of one year of RTL. By the time Fang was released, both Bo and Wang were under investigation (following Wang’s defection to the US consulate in Chengdu), and Gong Hanzhou, another Chongqing citizen put in RTL for similar allegations of disorderly Internet conduct, had won his first administrative lawsuit.

Fang and his lawyers sued the Chongqing RTL management committee two weeks after Fang’s release, arguing that the regulations authorizing RTL were not properly enacted by the legislature and, as they conflict with state laws, should be invalidated. As a secondary challenge, they argued that even if the legal basis for his RTL was deemed valid, Fang’s comments did not meet the conditions for punishment.

The court largely avoided the first challenge, saying only that, if Fang believed the RTL provisions to be in conflict with other law, he could seek legislative review through the proper channels. (Left unstated is the fact that, in practice, the channels for seeking this type of legislative interpretation are virtually closed.) Given that Chinese courts are principally authorized to apply laws in specific cases rather than issue general rulings about whether statutes conflict with the law or the constitution, this is perhaps unsurprising.

The court’s key finding—that Fang’s comments did not constitute a serious threat to social order—is more significant insofar as it articulated a potential standard against which to judge critical comments involving government officials: “State civil servants ought to maintain a restrained, tolerant, and modest attitude toward citizen criticisms of their official actions.” As Yuan Yulai, one of Fang’s lawyers, notes on his blog, the court’s statement is reminiscent of the legal standard of “actual malice” set out by the US Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan—namely, that libel against a public official or public figure must be shown to have been carried out "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Even though the Chongqing court’s ruling in Fang’s case is not applicable to other cases in the same way that the Supreme Court's ruling is in the United States, the intermediate court’s willingness to set a higher threshold for restrictions on speech aimed at officials could, if the idea becomes more widely accepted by Chinese jurists, have more long-term implications for the boundaries of free speech in China.


Chongqing No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court
Administrative Verdict

(2012) CQ 3d Int. Court Adm. 1st Instance No. 00010

Plaintiff is Fang Hong; male; born April 1, 1966; Han ethnicity; employee of the Chongqing Municipality Fuling District Forestry Bureau; resides at [Omitted—Ed.], Fuling District, Chongqing Municipality; citizen identification number [Omitted—Ed.].

Legal counsel is Yuan Yulai, lawyer with the Zhejiang Zhixing Law Firm.

Legal counsel is Si Weijiang, lawyer with the Shanghai Dabang Law Firm.

Defendant is the Chongqing People’s Government Reeducation through Labor (RTL) Management Committee, located at 555 Huanglong Road, Yubei District, Chongqing Municipality.

Legal representative is Wang Aizu, head.

Legal counsel is Du Mingwu, civil servant with the Chongqing People’s Government RTL Management Committee.

Legal counsel is Yao Gangtao, civil servant with the Chongqing People’s Government RTL Management Committee.

Plaintiff Fang Hong did not accept the RTL decision issued by defendant Chongqing People’s Government RTL Management Committee and filed an administrative lawsuit with this court on May 8, 2012. After accepting the case on May 14 of the same year, this court delivered to the defendant on May 17 a copy of the bill of complaint, a notice calling for response, and a notice to produce evidence. This court formed a collegiate bench in accordance with the law and held an open hearing for this case on June 29, 2012. Appearing before the court to take part in the proceedings were plaintiff Fang Hong and his legal counsel Yuan Yulai and Si Weijiang and the defendant’s legal counsel Yao Gangtao. This trial has now concluded.

On April 28, 2011, defendant Chongqing People’s Government RTL Management Committee issued RTL Decision RTL Rev. (2011) No. 1662, which found that Fang Hong, between April 19 and April 22, 2011, had gone online to disseminate rumors on the Tencent microblog [platform] multiple times using the screen name “Bamboo Shoot Fang,” and that the facts were clear and the evidence was reliable and sufficient that he caused a serious disruption to social management order. In accordance with the State Council Decision on the Issue of Reeducation through Labor and Article 3 of the State Council Supplementary Regulations on Reeducation through Labor, both of which were approved by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, and Article 10.4 and related provisions of the Trial Measures on Reeducation through Labor, the defendant decided to send Fang Hong to RTL for one year.

In support of its litigation position, the defendant provided this court within the statutory deadline with the following evidence concerning the specific administrative act at issue:

  1. The Chongqing People’s Government RTL Management Committee’s Hearing Notice; RTL Decision; RTL Notice; transcript of the questioning of Fang Hong at 11:48 p.m. on April 24, 2011; and the delivery receipt for the RTL Decision. These items intend to show that the Chongqing People’s Government RTL Management Committee followed lawful procedure in issuing its RTL decision.
  2. A transcript of the Chongqing Municipality Fuling District Public Security Bureau’s questioning of Fang Hong between 5:40 p.m. and 6:50 p.m. on April 24, 2011; a screenshot of the [micro]blog of “Bamboo Shoot Fang,” in which four posts read: “Bamboo Shoot Fang: This time Boqilai [Bo Xilai] made a big pile of shit and told Wang Lijun to eat it. Wang Lijun brought it to the procuratorate, the procuratorate brought it to the court, and the court told Li Zhuang to eat it. Li Zhuang, the former lawyer, said he said he wasn’t hungry and that whoever made it should eat it. It got sent back to Dr. Wang, and if he doesn’t eat what his boss made, who will?”; and proof of Fang Hong’s permanent resident status. These items intend to establish the fact that Fang Hong went online and used the Tencent microblog [platform] multiple times to disseminate rumors under the screen name “Bamboo Shoot Fang” and disrupted social management order.

The defendant provided this court with the normative documents upon which the specific administrative act at issue was based, namely: State Council Decision on the Issue of Reeducation through Labor and Article 3 of the State Council Supplementary Regulations on Reeducation through Labor, both of which were approved by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, and Article 4(1) and 10.4 of the Trial Measures on Reeducation through Labor.

Plaintiff Fang Hong’s complaint makes [the following] statements: The plaintiff is a cadre of the Chongqing Municipality Fuling District Forestry Bureau and an Internet enthusiast who expressed his views on public matters online. On the third day of the first-instance trial in part two of the “Li Zhuang evidence fabrication case,” when the prosecution requested that the court withdraw the indictment, the plaintiff posted a comment on his Tencent microblog on April 22, 2011, under the name “Bamboo Shoot Fang”: “Boqilai [Bo Xilai] made a big pile of shit and told Wang Lijun to eat it. Wang Lijun brought it to the procuratorate to eat, the procuratorate brought it to the court to eat, and the court told Li Zhuang to eat it. Li Zhuang’s lawyer said Li Zhuang wasn’t hungry and that whoever made it should eat it.” After publishing the aforementioned microblog post, Unit Leader Xu of the Chongqing Municipality Fuling District Public Security Bureau notified the plaintiff to come to his office, where he made some notes and requested that the plaintiff delete the microblog post. The plaintiff went home and deleted the microblog post. At approximately 8 p.m. on April 24, 2011, the Chongqing Municipality Fuling District Public Security Bureau decided to place the plaintiff under administrative detention for 10 days, but later this decision was revoked. On that same day, the defendant delivered to the plaintiff a Hearing Notice from the Chongqing People’s Government RTL Management Committee, which stated that because the plaintiff had “fabricated facts and disrupted public order” it had been decided to send him to RTL for one year in accordance with Article 10.4 of the Trial Measures on Reeducation through Labor. After signing his name, the plaintiff was sent to the Chongqing Municipality Fuling RTL and Drug Treatment Center. On April 24, 2012, the plaintiff was released at the end of his term after receiving a one-day extension. The plaintiff maintains that the basis for the defendant’s administrative act is the Trial Measures on Reeducation through Labor, which were enacted by the Ministry of Public Security and reissued by the State Council, and that these measures should be considered null and void because they contravene the provisions of the Legislation Law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), which is superior law. Even according to Article 10.4 of the Trial Measures on Reeducation through Labor, the plaintiff’s behavior is not something that is covered by RTL. The defendant’s administrative act is completely without legal basis. [The plaintiff] requests annulment of the defendant’s RTL Decision RTL Rev. (2011) No. 1662 issued on April 28, 2011.

Plaintiff Fang Hong provided this court with the following evidence: 1. The hearing notice from the Chongqing People’s Government RTL Management Committee; 2. A notice from the Chongqing Municipality Fuling RTL and Drug Treatment Center and a transmission form for documents related to detainee Fang Hong from the Fuling RTL and Drug Treatment Center Procuratorial Office of the Chongqing People’s Procuratorate No. 3 Branch Procuratorate. This evidence is intended to show that the plaintiff’s complaint meets the statutory criteria.

The defendant argued in defense that: Between April 19 and April 22, 2011, Fang Hong went online to disseminate rumors on the Tencent microblog [platform] multiple times using the screen name “Bamboo Shoot Fang,” causing a serious disruption to social management order. Based on the facts of Fang Hong’s illegal acts, on April 28, 2011, our committee decided, in accordance with the State Council Decision on the Issue of Reeducation through Labor and Article 3 of the State Council Supplementary Regulations on Reeducation through Labor, both of which were approved by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, and Article 10.4 and related provisions of the Trial Measures on Reeducation through Labor, to send Fang Hong to RTL for one year for disrupting social management order. [The defendant] requests that the court make a fair ruling in accordance with the law.

The aforementioned evidence was cross-examined by the court and this court finds that all of the evidence produced by the defendant and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff falls under the category of documentary evidence. According to the requirements for documentary evidence in the Regulations on Evidence in Administrative Litigation, submitted documentary evidence should be the master copy, an original copy, or a duplicate copy that has been verified as accurate against the master copy. The aforementioned documentary evidence provided by the plaintiff and the defendant in this case consists of duplicates that have been verified as accurate against master copies, and they possess the authenticity, legality, and connectedness of evidence and should be considered credible and able to serve as evidence upon which to decide this case.

In the course of the trial, it was found that: Plaintiff Fang Hong is an employee of the Chongqing Municipality Fuling District Forestry Bureau. Between April 19 and April 22, 2011, Fang Hong used the screen name “Bamboo Shoot Fang” multiple times to make comments on the Tencent microblog [platform]. On April 22, 2011, when the plaintiff learned that the court had ruled to approve the prosecution’s request to withdraw the indictment against Li Zhuang for “overlooked crimes,” he posted an item on the Tencent microblog [platform] under the screen name “Bamboo Shoot Fang,” which said: “This time Boqilai [Bo Xilai] made a big pile of shit and told Wang Lijun to eat it. Wang Lijun brought it to the procuratorate, the procuratorate brought it to the court, and the court told Li Zhuang to eat it. Li Zhuang, the former lawyer, said he said he wasn’t hungry and that whoever made it should eat it. It got sent back to Dr. Wang, and if he doesn’t eat what his boss made, who will?” On April 24, 2011, the Chongqing Municipality Fuling District Public Security Bureau questioned the plaintiff and then decided to place him under administrative detention for 10 days before later revoking that decision. On April 24, 2011, the defendant delivered to the plaintiff a hearing notice from the Chongqing People’s Government RTL Management Committee, which informed plaintiff Fang Hong that [the committee] decided, in accordance with Article 10.4 of the Trial Measures on Reeducation through Labor, to send him to RTL for one year for fabricating facts that disrupted public order and, among other things, that the plaintiff had the right to apply for a hearing and retain counsel to provide legal aid. The plaintiff never applied for a hearing. On April 28, 2011, the defendant issued RTL Decision RTL Rev. (2011) No. 1662, which found that in the case of Fang Hong’s disruption of social management order, the facts were clear and the evidence was reliable and sufficient. In accordance with the State Council Decision on the Issue of Reeducation through Labor and Article 3 of the State Council Supplementary Regulations on Reeducation through Labor, both of which were approved by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, and Article 10.4 and related provisions of the Trial Measures on Reeducation through Labor, it was decided to send Fang Hong to RTL for one year. On April 29, 2011, the defendant telephoned Fang Hong’s son, Fang Di, to notify him of the aforementioned RTL decision and then transferred the plaintiff to the Chongqing Municipality Fuling RTL and Drug Treatment Center to carry out RTL. On April 24, 2012, the plaintiff was released from RTL. On May 8, 2012, the plaintiff filed an administrative lawsuit with this court.

It was also found that the defendant never provided this court with evidence concerning matters such as case filing or verification [procedures associated with] RTL and that the issued RTL Decision RTL Rev. (2011) No. 1662 failed to specify the commencement and conclusion dates for enforcement of RTL for one year.

This court finds that: The State Council Decision on the Issue of Reeducation through Labor and the State Council Supplementary Regulations on Reeducation through Labor are both valid and current normative documents implemented after being approved by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee. The Trial Measures on Reeducation through Labor enacted by the Ministry of Public Security and reissued by the State Council are concretizations of the aforementioned valid normative documents. Article 4(1) of the Trial Measures on Reeducation through Labor state: “RTL management committees formed by people’s governments of provinces, autonomous regions, directly administered municipalities, and large and medium-sized cities provide leadership and management of RTL work and review, approve, and take custody of persons subject to RTL.” Defendant Chongqing People’s Government RTL Management Committee has the standing to issue the specific administrative act at issue in this case.

According to Article 5 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the PRC, a people’s court shall, in trying an administrative case, conduct an examination of the legality of a specific administrative act. If the plaintiff considers the Trial Measures on Reeducation through Labor to be in conflict with superior law, it may, in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, submit a recommendation for review to an authorized body.

Looking at the legal facts revealed through investigation in this case, though the comments made by plaintiff Fang Hong under the screen name “Bamboo Shoot Fang” on the Tencent microblog [platform] were expressed indecently, they cannot be considered dissemination of rumors and did not cause any serious consequences of disrupting social management order and even less did they meet the basic criterion of a “serious threat to social order and state interests.” State civil servants ought to maintain a restrained, tolerant, and modest attitude toward citizen criticisms of their official actions. With respect to plaintiff Fang Hong’s act of posting on the Tencent microblog [platform] under the name “Bamboo Shoot Fang,” the defendant has no evidence to show that this act meets the circumstances of “disruptions of social order such as mass brawling, creating a serious disturbance, or instigating turmoil, where the act does not warrant criminal punishment” under Article 10.4 of the Trial Measures on Reeducation through Labor. Therefore, the facts are unclear and the evidence is insufficient for the defendant to issue a decision of RTL for one year against plaintiff Fang Hong for fabrication of facts and disruption of social management order. At the same time, the defendant’s failure to provide evidence concerning things such as the case filing and verification [procedures] and failure in the issued RTL decision to specify the commencement and conclusion dates for RTL constitute procedural illegality.

In summary, with respect to the RTL decision at issue, the facts are unclear, the evidence is insufficient, and the procedure was illegal. Because enforcement of the compulsory administrative measure has already concluded, there is nothing that can be annulled and, in accordance with the law, the RTL decision ought to be confirmed as illegal. Plaintiff Fang Hong has the right, in accordance with the law, to apply for administrative compensation. Based on this, in accordance with Article 57(2)(2) of the Supreme People’s Court Interpretation on Several Questions Regarding Implementation of the Administrative Litigation Law of the PRC, [this court] rules as follows:

To confirm that RTL Decision RTL Rev. (2011) No. 1662 issued by defendant Chongqing People’s Government RTL Management Committee on April 28, 2011, is illegal.

The filing fee of 50 yuan in this case is to be borne by the Chongqing People’s Government RTL Management Committee.

If this verdict is not accepted, an appeal may be made to the Chongqing High People’s Court by delivering an appellate complaint to this court within 15 days of delivery of this verdict, along with a number of copies equal to the number of opposing parties to the suit.

Presiding Judge: Yang Yu
Deputy Judicial Officer: Tan Xiaoqi
Deputy Judicial Officer: Liu Houyong

[Seal of Chongqing No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court]
June 29, 2012

[Stamp that reads: “This document has been verified as accurate against the master copy”]
Clerk: Qu Xia

Original Source: 
Chongqing No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court - Administrative Verdict
《重庆市第三中级人民法院 - 行政判决书》
Click on icon to expand

重庆市第三中级人民法院
行政判决书

(2012) 渝三中法行初字第 00010 号

        原告方洪,男,1966 年4月1日出生,汉族,重庆市涪陵区林业局职工,住重庆市涪陵区 [编者略] ,公民身份号码 [编者略] 。

        委托代理人袁裕来,浙江之星律师事务所律师。
        委托代理人斯伟江,上海市大邦律师事务所律师。
        被告重庆市人民政府劳动教养管理委员会,住所地重庆市渝北区黄龙路555号。
        法定代表人王爱祖,主任。
        委托代理人杜明武,重庆市人民政府劳动教养管理委员会公务员。
        委托代理人姚岗涛,重庆市人民政府劳动教养管理委员会公务员。
        原告方洪不服被告重庆市人民政府劳动教养管理委员会作出的劳动教养决定,于2012年5月8日向本院提起行政诉讼。本院同年5月14日受理后,于5月17日向被告送达了起诉状副本、应诉通知书及举证通知书,并依法组成合议庭,于2012年6月29日公开开庭审理了本案。原告方洪及其委托代理人袁裕来、斯伟江,被告的委托代理人姚岗涛到庭参加了诉讼。本案现已审理终结。
        被告重庆市人民市政府劳动教养管理委员会于2011年4月28日作出劳教审(2011)字第1662号劳动教养决定书,认定方洪于2011年4月19日至4月22日,在互联网上多次用网名“方竹笋”在腾讯微博中散布谣言,严重扰乱社会治安秩序的事实清楚,证据确实充分。被告根据全国人民代表大会常务委员会批准的《国务院关于劳动教养问题的决定》、《国务院关于劳动教养的补充规定》第三条和《劳动教养试行办法》第十条第(四)项及有关规定,决定对方洪劳动教养一年。
        被告为支持其诉讼主张,在法定期限内向本院提供了作出被诉具体行政行为的如下证据:
  1. 重庆市人民政府劳动教养管理委员会聆询告知书、劳动教养决定书、劳动教养通知书、2011年4月24日23时48分询问方洪笔录、劳动教养决定书送达回执。拟证明被告重庆市人民政府劳动教养管理委员会作出的劳动教养决定程序合法。
  2. 重庆市涪陵区公安局于2011年4月24日17时40分至2011年4月24日18时50分询问方洪笔录;网络截屏“方竹笋”的博客载明:“方竹笋:这次就是勃起来屙了一坨屎叫王立军吃,王立军端给检察院,检察院端给法院,法院叫李庄吃,李庄原律师说他不饿,谁屙的谁吃,这不退给王博士了,他主子屙的他不吃谁吃”等四条言论;方洪常住人口证明。拟证明方洪在互联网腾讯微博中多次用网名“方竹笋”散布谣言,扰乱社会治安秩序的事实。
        被告向本院提供作出被诉具体行政行为的规范性文件有:全国人民代表大会常务委员会批准的《国务院关于劳动教养问题的决定》、《国务院关于劳动教养的补充规定》第三条和《劳动教养试行办法》第四条第一款、第十条第(四)项。
        原告方洪诉称:原告系重庆市涪陵区林业局干部,互联网爱好者,并在互联网上发表对公共事务的看法。“李庄伪证罪”二季一审第三天,公诉机关向法庭提请撤回起诉,原告便于2011年4月22日在腾讯微博上以“方竹笋”为网名发表了一则评论:“勃起来屙了一坨屎,叫王立军吃,王立军端给检察院吃,检察院端给法院吃,法院叫李庄吃,李庄的律师说李庄不饿,谁屙的谁吃”。上述微博发出后,重庆市涪陵区公安局徐支队长通知原告到他办公室,作了笔录并要求原告删除微博。原告回家后删除了微博。2011年4月24日晚8时许,重庆市涪陵区公安局决定对原告行政拘留10日,嗣后又予以撤销。当日,被告向原告送达《重庆市人民政府劳动教养管理委员会聆询告知书》,该告知书以原告“虚构事实扰乱公共秩序”为由,依据《劳动教养试行办法》第十条第(四)项的规定,决定对原告劳动教养一年。签完字后,原告被送进重庆市涪陵劳动教养戒毒所。2012年4月24日,原告期满后又被延长一天释放。原告认为,被告作出行政行为的依据是国务院转发公安部制定的《劳动教养试行办法》,该办法违背了上位法《中华人民共和国立法法》的规定,应属无效。即便根据《劳动教养试行办法》第十条第(四)项的规定,原告的行为也不属于劳动教养对象。被告作出的行政行为完全没有法律依据,请求撤销被告于2011年4月28日作出的劳教审(2011)字第1662号劳动教养决定。
        原告方洪向本院提交的证据有:1、重庆市人民政府劳动教养管理委员会聆询告知书;2、重庆市涪陵劳动教养戒毒所告知书、重庆市人民检察院第三分院派驻涪陵劳动教养戒毒所检察室被监管人方洪材料传递单。拟证明原告起诉符合法定条件。
        被告辨称:2011年4月19日至4月22日,方洪在互联网上多次用网名“方竹笋”在腾讯微博中散布谣言,严重扰乱社会治安秩序。基于方洪的违法事实,我委于2011年4月28日根据全国人民代表大会常务委员会批准的《国务院关于劳动教养问题的决定》、《国务院关于劳动教养的补充规定》第三条和《劳动教养试行办法》第十条第(四)项及有关规定,对方洪以扰乱社会治安秩序作出劳动教养一年的决定。请求法院依法公正判决。
        上述证据经庭审质证,本院认为被告举出的全部证据,以及原告提供的证据均系书证,根据行政诉讼证据规则对书证的要求,提供书证应当是原本、正本、或与原件核对无异的复印件。本案原,被告提供的以上书证是与原件核对无异的复印件,具有证据的真实性、合法性、关联性,均应以采信,可作为本案定案依据。
        经审理查明:原告方洪系重庆市涪陵区林业局职工。2011年4月19日至22日,方洪在腾讯微博上多次用网名“方竹笋”发表言论。2011年4月22日,原告获悉法院裁定准许公诉机关撤回李庄“漏罪”案起诉的消息后,在腾讯微博上以网名“方竹笋” 发表一则言论,内容是“这次就是勃起来屙了一坨屎叫王立军吃,王立军端给检察院,检察院端给法院,法院叫李庄吃,李庄原律师说他不饿,谁屙的谁吃,这不退给王博士了,他主子屙的他不吃谁吃”。2011年4月24日,重庆市涪陵区公安局经询问原告后决定对原告行政拘留10日,嗣后又予以撤销。2011年4月24日,被告向原告送达了重庆市人民政府劳动教养管理委员会聆询告知书,该告知书告知原告方洪因虚构事实扰乱公共秩序,根据《劳动教养试行办法》第十条第(四)项的规定,拟决定对原告劳动教养一年;原告有申请聆询和聘请代理人提供法律帮助的权利等。原告未提出聆询申请。2011年4月28日,被告作出劳教审(2011)字第1662号劳动教养决定书,认定方洪扰乱社会治安秩序一案事实清楚,证据确实充分。根据全国人民代表大会常务委员会批准的《国务院关于劳动教养问题的决定》、《国务院关于劳动教养的补充规定》第三条和《劳动教养试行办法》第十条第(四)项及有关规定,决定对方洪劳动教养一年。2011年4月29日,被告通过电话方式向方洪之子方迪告知了前述劳动教养决定后,将原告送进重庆市涪陵劳动教养戒毒所执行劳动教养。2012年4月24日,原告被解除劳动教养。2012年5月8日,原告向本院提起行政诉讼。
        另查明,被告未向本院提供劳动教养立案、审核等方面的证据;作出的劳教审(2011)字第1662号劳动教养决定书中未明确执行劳动教养一年的起止期限。
        本院认为:《国务院关于劳动教养问题的决定》和《国务院关于劳动教养的补充规定》是经全国人民代表大会常务委员会批准执行的现行有效的规范性文件。国务院转发公安部制定的《劳动教养试行办法》是前述有效规范性文件的具体化。《劳动教养试行办法》第四条第一款规定:“省、自治区、直辖市和大中城市人民政府组成的劳动教养管理委员会,领导和管理劳动教养工作,审查批准收容劳动教养人员”。被告重庆市人民政府劳动教养管理委员会具有作出本案被诉具体行政行为的主体资格。
        《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第五条规定,人民法院审理行政案件,对具体行政行为的合法性进行审查。原告认为《劳动教养试行办法》与上位法相抵触,可按相关法律规定向有权机关提出审查建议。
        从本案调查的法律事实看,原告方洪用网名“方竹笋”在腾讯微博上发表的言论,虽言辞不雅,但不属于散布谣言,也未造成扰乱社会治安秩序的严重后果,更不具备“严重危害社会秩序和国家利益”这一基本条件;国家公务人员对公民基于其职务行为的批评,应保持克制、包容、谦恭的态度。原告方洪用网名“方竹笋”在腾讯微博上发表言论的行为,被告没有证据证明该行为符合《劳动教养试行办法》第十条第(四)项规定的“聚众斗殴、寻衅滋事、煽动闹事等扰乱社会治安,不够刑事处分的”的情形。故被告以原告方洪虚构事实扰乱社会治安秩序对其作出劳动教养一年的决定事实不清,证据不足。同时,被告未提供立案、审核等方面的证据,以及作出的劳动教养决定未明确执行的起止期限,属于程序违法。
        综上,被诉劳动教养决定事实不清,证据不足,程序违法。由于该行政强制措施已执行完毕,不具有可撤销内容,依法应当确认该劳动教养决定违法。原告方洪依法享用申请行政赔偿的权利。据此,依照《最高人民法院关于执行〈中华人民共和国行政诉讼法〉若干问题的解释》第五十七条第二款第(二)项之规定,判决如下:
        确认被告重庆市人民政府劳动教养管理委员会于2011年4月28日作出的劳教审(2011)字第1662号劳动教养决定违法。
        本案案件受理费50元,由重庆市人民政府劳动教养管理委员会负担。
        如不服本判决,可在判决书送达之日起十五日内提起上诉,向本院递交上诉状,并按对方当事人的人数递交上诉状副本,上诉于重庆市高级人民法院。
        
审判长 杨 煜
代理审判员 谭晓琪
代理审判员 刘厚勇

[图章: “重庆市第三中级人民法院”]
二〇一二年六月二十九日

[印章: “本件与原本核对无异”]

书记员 瞿 霞

收起中文部分


Thursday, November 8, 2012

Call for Constitutionalism at the 18th Party Congress

18th National Party Congress Press Conference Center. Photo: Xinhua

At a press conference on the eve of the 18th Party Congress, a spokesman told reporters that the delegates assembled in Beijing to select China’s newest leadership group “brought with them the wishes of the Chinese people.” Indeed, as they did at the time of China’s last leadership transition 10 years ago, many in and outside China have high expectations for China’s incoming leadership, looking to them to push forward all sorts of much-needed economic, legal, and political reform.

In a recent interview with the Economic Observer newspaper, Shanghai-based constitutional scholar Tong Zhiwei expresses his own hopes that China’s coming decade will bring a renewed commitment to the principles of constitutional governance. As Tong explains, such a commitment to limiting state power and protecting individual rights would have profound ramifications for China’s economy, its legal institutions, and especially its political system.

*
Constitutional Rule: Current Realities and Future Visions
Meng Lei
Economic Observer, November 3, 2012

Conscientiously Protect Citizens’ Fundamental Rights

Economic Observer [hereafter, EO]: A few days from now, the Chinese Communist Party will hold its 18th Party Congress and there will be a transition of the party’s central leadership. This year is also the 30th anniversary of the promulgation of the 1982 constitution. As a constitutional scholar, what prospects do you see for “ruling the country according to the constitution” in the coming decade?

Professor Tong Zhiwei. Photo: 21CCOM.net

Tong Zhiwei: It’s great that you’ve chosen to discuss things from the angle of ruling the country according to the constitution! To rule according to the constitution is a concrete requirement of constitutionalism; ruling according to the constitution means implementing constitutionalism, and implementing constitutionalism requires ruling according to the constitution. Governance is not an issue for ordinary citizens; it’s only a problem for state leaders and the ruling party. So, during the 18th Party Congress, it is necessary to discuss this fundamental issue.

Essentially speaking, the most important aspects of constitutionalism are, first, the need to implement the restrictions and checks on [the exercise of] supreme power provided for in the constitution and, second, the need to conscientiously protect all of the fundamental rights of citizens that are affirmed by the constitution.

In the 30 years since the current constitution took effect, constitutional implementation has made major achievements overall, but has also encountered some fairly major problems. We don’t lack for self-praise, so with respect to ruling according to the constitution I think I’ll focus on what hasn’t been done well and where it is necessary to exert significant effort to improve.

Whether one is talking about rule according to the constitution or constitutionalism, the first requirement is the need to place all public power under the regulation or restriction of the constitution and not allowing [the existence of] any power that is unchecked or not subject to restriction by the constitution. But in our country, there are some basic issues of constitutionalism that have yet to be resolved. For starters, have a look at the power [enjoyed by] the party secretaries in some cities and counties—how are they restrained by the constitution? The most extreme [example] is Bo Xilai when he was in Chongqing. There he was called a leader of the ruling party, but the constitution and laws that were established in accordance with party proposals were simply unable to restrain him. He was called the leader of the municipal party committee, but in fact [he ran] a personal dictatorship where local institutions of state power and other state institutions set forth in the constitution were only for show. Under these circumstances, how can it be acceptable not to reform?

Another requirement of rule according to the constitution or constitutionalism is the conscientious protection of citizens’ fundamental rights. Citizens’ fundamental rights refer to those individual rights affirmed in the constitution; rights that the state is obliged to protect. Over the past 30-plus years, our citizens’ fundamental rights have received fuller protection than they ever did in the past, but unfortunately, obvious defects exist. China is a country that strictly adheres to a statutory-law system in which the fundamental rights provided in the constitution generally must first be expressed through legislation before they can actually be protected. In reality, it remains an open question how to implement and how to use the law to protect these constitutional rights of citizens.

EO: Without special legislation, these specific constitutional rights cannot be protected. In other words, when these rights are subjected to restriction, the constitution is not enough to be used as a “shield.”

Tong: You’re a reporter, you’ve certainly heard sayings such as “there is freedom to research, but expression must be disciplined.” But can citizens’ fundamental rights be restricted through discipline? If so, it is the same as the deprivation of relevant fundamental rights.

Citizen’s fundamental rights can only be restricted by laws. Moreover, laws restricting fundamental rights cannot protect these fundamental rights in form but negate them in practice. Also, laws restricting citizens’ fundamental rights cannot violate the constitution, because laws that violate the constitution are invalid. Of course, this necessitates an effective system of constitutional review, or, as our constitution puts it, a system to “oversee constitutional enforcement.”

Here, it’s crucial to understand why all norms that are not laws, like administrative regulations, have no power to restrict citizens’ fundamental rights. The logic is simple. Taking China’s constitution as an example, if a fundamental right affirmed in a constitution that was passed by more than two thirds of all of the delegates to the National People’s Congress (NPC) could be restricted arbitrarily by central state organs like the State Council or by local state organs, it would effectively mean a veto over this right’s essence as a fundamental right and be no different in consequence from the constitution not affirming this right.

Of course, this is not to say that without legal protections citizens are entirely unable to enjoy these rights. Without corresponding legal provisions, citizens more or less still enjoy some fundamental rights affirmed in the constitution, but this kind of enjoyment lacks stable, reliable protection.

EO: Just now you were discussing constitutional rights that are not yet protected through specific laws. But in reality, there are some fundamental rights for which there is already specific legislation but the protection [of these rights] is still not ideal. What causes this?

Tong: There are many reasons that can lead to this kind of situation.

The first situation is that the legislation itself is problematic. Even though there are legal protections, things like violations of the principles of rule of law mean that the legislation doesn’t meet the standards of effective protection that are commonly necessary. For example, there are procedures in the Criminal Procedure Law that protect the right to personal liberty. According to rule-of-law principles, criminal coercive measures and investigative methods taken by investigative departments should be reviewed and approved by a court. But in the majority of situations our laws do not require review or approval by a court; rather, the public security departments decide and implement [these decisions] on their own. This is the case for residential surveillance, release on guarantee pending further investigation, seizure of property, monitoring, etc.

The second scenario is when laws exist but are not followed. This has been particularly noticeable in recent years. I won’t discuss this in detail; readers can recall some of the more notorious cases from recent years.

The third situation is when laws or administrative regulations violate the constitution. From a certain perspective, the system of reeducation through labor, which we have all had enough of, can be put in this category.

The fourth situation is when a law’s derivative laws or normative documents violate the constitution or the law but cannot be reviewed in order to remedy the situation.

Aside from this, there are also outrages committed by state agencies or officials who don’t follow any rules at all. These are even more terrifying.

Exercise Power, Rule in Accordance with the Constitution

EO: Besides protection through dedicated legislation, I’d like to ask you to discuss why courts can’t directly apply the constitutional provisions protecting fundamental rights. In this regard, didn’t we once discuss “judicialization of the constitution”?

Tong: Constitutional adjudication is different from ordinary judicial discretion. Valid constitutional rulings must effectively restrain all state agencies and officials, otherwise they cannot be considered constitutional rulings and would have no significance. Our courts have a lower status than the people’s congresses and their standing committees. It would be unimaginable for a Chinese court ruling to restrain the NPC and its standing committee or even the people’s congress and standing committee at its own administrative level. So, there is no way to accomplish this so-called “judicialization of the constitution.” However, even if we cannot judicialize the constitution, it is possible to implement constitutional review, or, as provided for in our constitution, the oversight of constitutional enforcement. Oversight of constitutional enforcement is a power of the NPC and its standing committee. A dedicated body ought to be established to deal with this matter. We’ve discussed this issue for decades, ever since 1982 when the constitution was promulgated. Unfortunately, it has yet to be resolved. What we can strive for at the moment is to establish a dedicated constitutional oversight body.

There has been much discussion of this subject. One of the more radical ideas is to have the NPC establish a constitutional committee, equal in status to the NPC Standing Committee, that would be able to review the constitutionality of all legislation except that passed by the NPC. A more moderate proposal is to establish a dedicated state agency under the NPC and its standing committee equal in rank to the State Council and the Supreme People’s Court. The most modest reform would involve setting up a special committee under the NPC, not an independent organ of the state, that would carry out specific review work related to oversight of constitutional enforcement and provide consultative opinions to the NPC and its standing committee. Whether it’s a constitutional court or constitutional committee, the most important thing is that it must not be all talk and no action.

EO: On September 15, 2004, Comrade Hu Jintao said in a speech at the “50th anniversary commemoration of the establishment of the National People’s Congress”: “In order to rule the country in accordance with the law, we must first rule in accordance with the constitution. In order to exercise power in accordance with the law, we must first exercise power in accordance with the constitution.” Nevertheless, when Lu Yongxiang, vice chairman of the NPC Standing Committee, said last week that China’s fundamental [task] going forward would be to “exercise power and rule the country in accordance with the constitution,” the media and the public still treated it as a major, noteworthy event. Why do you think that some comrades, like theoreticians and leading cadres, treat this subject as taboo?

Tong: If the constitution and laws are properly utilized, they can be used to resolve all problems. However, because many leading cadres are not familiar with the constitution, they don’t have a clear understanding about how to resolve problems within the framework of the constitution or law. When there is no effective implementation of the constitution or laws, much of the time it is mainly because of poor use by institutions of public power and their officials.

Moreover, it’s much easier to talk about doing things or governing in accordance with the constitution than it is to have correct understandings. A fundamental requirement of ruling in accordance with the constitution is, first, that those bodies that exercise constitutional state authority are themselves based in the constitution. In other words, the name of that body or official position can be found in the constitution. Bodies or official positions that are not named in the text of the constitution cannot exercise constitutional state power—that is most important. A big problem we currently face is that some party and governmental bodies commonly exceed their authority and exercise state power. All state power derives from the people, and the people express themselves legally through voting. Only organizations or persons that are directly or indirectly elected by voters are those that have been granted state power by the voters. At present, there are still many matters with which there is a gap from this standard.

EO: Returning to the constitution itself, how do you assess the results of constitutional amendments over the years?

Tong: I normally divide constitutional amendments into comprehensive and partial amendments. The 1982 constitution was a comprehensive amendment of the 1978 Constitution, while since 1982 the constitution has undergone four partial amendments. Without question, the 1982 Constitution is more advanced than the 1978 Constitution, and the current constitution is a relatively good one.

No matter whether one is talking about comprehensive or partial amendments, the biggest problem that has emerged in our country over the course of all previous amendments remains an insufficient mentality regarding constitutional enforcement. The constitution is emblematic of [the state of] democracy and rule of law, and without a constitution you cannot even speak of these things. So, in the past, consideration mostly went to creating a constitution in order to represent [these things], whereas relatively little consideration was given to how to seriously enforce it. This can be seen in the way that amended constitutions have immediately taken effect after their promulgation. Never once at the time of promulgating and implementing a new constitution was a thorough constitutional review of existing law, regulations, and other normative documents conducted and the results of it released.

The 1954 constitution was like this, and the 1982 constitution and the four subsequent amendments were each handled this way as well. In order to seriously enforce the constitution, there definitely needs to be a transitional period before it takes effect, during which time two things must be done in earnest: first, the enactment of necessary laws as concrete protections of the new fundamental rights affirmed in the new constitution; and, second, the weeding out of legal and regulatory provisions that contradict [the new constitution] and the announcement of [these provisions] as in violation of the constitution and abolished. You cannot say that this kind of new basic law can take effect immediately after it is announced. That’s impossible.

EO: Can you give a few examples of old laws or regulations that were in conflict with the new constitution or constitutional amendments at the time they were announced that should have been reviewed and abolished but never were?

Tong: There are too many. For example, the Methods for Custody and Repatriation of Urban Migrants and Beggars that led to the Sun Zhigang affair count as an administrative regulation that should have been sorted out and abolished at the time the 1982 constitution was promulgated and implemented, but it never was. Similarly, the State Council Decision on the Issue of Reeducation through Labor and its Supplementary Regulations, as well as the NPC Standing Committee’s Decision Regarding the Handling of Offenders Undergoing Reform through Labor and Persons Undergoing Reeducation through Labor who Escape or Commit New Crimes are normative documents that should at least have already been sorted out and abolished when constitutional amendments were promulgated to respect and protect human rights [in 2004] and to establish a socialist country under rule of law [in 1999].

EO: Just now you mentioned institutional regulations, which definitely include administrative regulations. This makes me think of some rules of government and administrative bodies, such [as those involving] so-called property tax, about which there has been furious speculation of late. I’d like your opinion: if the State Council or local governments pass new rules or revise old rules to levy a tax, would it satisfy constitutional principles?

Tong: The State Council is a state administrative body. Even though it is the highest state administrative body, for it to decide to levy a tax would not satisfy constitutional principles. The right to private property is a citizen’s fundamental right protected in the constitution. Moreover, the levying of taxes on citizens is a major state issue. Looking from these two perspectives, levying of taxes can only be decided through legislation passed by the NPC. I believe that the next amendment to the constitution should add some new provisions regarding taxation and financial budgeting in order to more fully protect citizens’ private property rights and the effective control over budgeting by people’s congresses at all levels.

Constitutionalism and the Economy

EO: Turning to look at economic development, how do you see the relationship between constitutionalism and economic development?

Tong: There is an extremely close relationship between constitutionalism and economic development. We need long-term, sustainable development. The American legal scholar [Richard] Posner once suggested that a state structured on separation of powers and the principle of checks and balances is the lowest-cost, most efficient constitutional system there is. In saying this he pretties-up their political system, but he makes a significant point about the relationship between constitutionalism and healthy, sustainable economic development. Historically, some totalitarian, dictatorial governments have sometimes appeared more efficient and able to make rapid and timely decisions about various matters. But they often make big mistakes and, once having made them, it is extremely difficult to rectify them, which leads to especially major economic waste. With a system of constitutionalism and rule of law, the situation is precisely the opposite. These days, we all talk about “low-carbon economics” and “green economics.” I think that constitutionalism is the rule-of-law low-carbon and green environment that most suits economic development.

There are many counterexamples in China. For example, during our history the Great Leap Forward and “Cultural Revolution” were economic disasters seldom seen in world history. Everyone knows that more than 10 million people starved to death during the Great Leap Forward and that the “Cultural Revolution” brought China’s national economy to the brink of disaster. These problems were all caused by China’s lack of constitutionalism and rule of law. They were economic disasters caused by flaws in the political and legal [systems].

EO: Since reform and opening, some constitutional changes such as provisions to establish a market economy and emphasize the status and role of the non-state-sector economy have fundamentally pushed forward our country’s economic development or, at least, played an irreplaceable role.

Tong: The state-sector economy certainly played an important role in the rapid economic development over the past 30 years, but first and foremost we must recognize that it was [the introduction of] new elements that brought about this sort of high-speed development, starting with the private economy and then the market economic system and the introduction of foreign capital through reform and opening. Under 30 years of the state-owned, planned economy, things didn’t go well. Then, after the constitution provided for the co-existence of a variety of economic actors and the implementation of the market economy, growth immediately picked up. But after things picked up, many people forgot [the reasons for this]. The [policy of] advancing the state sector and shrinking the private sector is, on some level, that is, to a real degree, following the old path and, it ought to be said, has no future. We will see that none of the modern economic powers with reasonably balanced development rely on a state-run economic sector, and some countries, such as the United States, can almost be said to have no state-sector economy. These are things we should consider but not necessarily replicate. I’m not advocating privatization but advancing the state sector and shrinking the private sector is definitely no good. China’s economic future mainly rests on the strong growth of the non-state economy. Our current economy is still a kind of “identity economy” in which things are unequal and [success] depends on the identity of the actor. We need to devise a way to fix this.

EO: What concrete reform measures could be [implemented] next to realize rule and governance according to the constitution? Put another way, in the next 10 years, in what areas should constitutional rule and governance be promoted?

Tong: I’ll make a few simple points:

  1. Institutions of the state and ruling-party organization, along with their powers, should return to the constitution. The ruling party ought to use its political leaders to have its positions written into the constitution and the laws, and recommend its trusted party-member cadres to positions in state organs through legal procedures. State institutions must truly take up the duties of state institutions and handle matters strictly according to the constitution and laws, rather than doing things according to speeches or temporary [policy] documents issued by one body or another. There should be a true separation.

  2. Enact necessary constitutional legislation. First of all, this includes a News Law and Publication Law to protect citizens’ freedom of speech and publication, an Association Law to protect the people’s right to form associations, and a Protection of Religious Freedom Law to protect citizen’s freedom of religious beliefs. The highest organ of state power should establish legislation to protect the fundamental citizens’ rights provided for in the constitution.

  3. Step-by-step, planned implementation of direct, competitive elections of people’s congress delegates at all levels. Even if for the time being we still cannot have direct elections of NPC delegates, we should at least gradually introduce direct election of local people’s congresses at all levels. There should be no problems with having direct competitive elections for local people’s congress delegates. If there are no competitive elections, the people’s congresses serve no representative function.

    Presently, people’s congresses clearly serve no representative function. For instance, consider the example of the recent incident in Ningbo, as well as those in Qidong and Shifang. We can see that in these incidents, people’s congresses did not participate substantively in making major local decisions, not to mention make those decisions themselves. Even if they had participated, they wouldn’t reflect public opinion. When there are matters that ought to be discussed before decisions are made and people’s congresses don’t even engage in substantive discussion, the results will be conflict appearing in the streets.

  4. Effective protection of judicial independence. An independent judicial system is an important sign of a modern nation. All types of disputes in society ultimately rely on resolution through the judicial system, but today, because courts and judges are not independent, judicial rulings lack the authority they ought to have. For this reason, the party and government always have to face social conflicts directly. This is extremely harmful to China’s stability and sustained development.

  5. Set up a body dedicated to constitutional review (or constitutional oversight and protection) and properly deal with review of the constitutionality and legality of derivative legislation and normative documents. It is because the 1954 constitution had no system for constitutional review that [the idea] silently died. In response to this lesson, the 1982 constitution specially enacted some provisions with the hopes that they would remedy the unfortunate deficiencies of the 1954 constitution. However, because for more than 30 years it has been all talk and no action, constitutional review today remains something relegated to paper only. In more than 30 years the highest organ of state power has not enacted the necessary procedural law and has not carried out a thorough review of the constitutionality or legality of laws or relevant administrative regulations. This is a major problem that concerns the unity of the state legal institutions, and one that ought to be resolved in a timely manner.

    I hope that the 18th Party Congress can set out an encouraging blueprint for the construction of constitutionalism for the coming decade. This would have profound significance for China.

 

Tong Zhiwei: Vice president of the China Constitutional Studies Association and professor at East China University of Political Science and Law