Delocalization

On Oct. 28, the Supreme People's Court issued an opinion on implementing the constitutional principle that courts independently exercise jurisdiction, fighting against all kinds of local or department protectionism, barring interference of power, money and relations, gradually improving a mechanism that ensures courts independently and impartially exercise power in accordance with the law and upholding the dignity and authority of the constitution and laws.

File photo The Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China.

Southern Metropolis Daily reports that Shen Deyong, deputy president of the Supreme People's Court, once wrote a report to the central leadership on the difficulties of courts exercising independent jurisdiction due to external interference and incorrectly judged cases. The central leadership has commented on this report and forwarded it to the Commission of Politics and Law of the CPC Central Committee, which then forwarded it to other judicial bodies.

To expand judicial reforms, delocalization of judicial powers is an urgent issue, said Song. Currently, management of courts personnel and finance is authorized by local governments, which can easily interfere in jurisdiction. "Cases with unjust, false or wrong charges are often due to pressure from local protectionism on the courts." Song said.

Song suggests that the provincial people's congress and its standing committees should appoint and remove presidents and judges of courts as well as chief procurators and procurators of procuratorates in the counties and prefecture-level cities. They should let the provincial fiscal organs control the financial operation of local courts and procuratorates. The personnel and fiscal power of courts and procuratorates at the provincial level should be guaranteed by the central government.

De-administration

Under the current administration system, court staff who are responsible for certain case have to get approval on how to handle cases from vice presidents and presidents of the courts who are in charge of administration and may not have comprehensive understanding of cases.

Judicial staff, especially those working in courts, are eager to see the establishment of a system which ensures that judicial functions and powers can be independently exercised.

Internal research in this field includes increasing the authority of judges and the collegial panel and promoting the classified administration of court staff. But the key to solving the problem is to reduce court and procuratorial administration from the judicial and procuratorial functions.

Song suggests separating judicial activities from administrative activities. Chief judges and chief prosecutors should be in charge of judicial activities, and be supervised by judicial and prosecution committees. Chief judges, chief prosecutors and the collegial panels should be responsible for the facts and evidence in cases; judges or the collegial panel should be in charge of general case applicable laws and criminal policies. Judicial and prosecution committees should be responsible for applicable laws and criminal policies of important and difficult cases.

He also suggests that administration of judicial staff should be different to public servants to ensure the former gets higher material treatment than the latter and guarantee the independent execution of their duties. State compensation should be separated from the judicial staff accountability system and transferred to special agencies.

According to Shen Kui, vice dean of the Law School of Peking University, judicial reform is a project which requires progress in several mechanisms at the same time, to separate judicial and prosecution powers.