"The underlying cause is that the function of the administrative litigation system has not been brought into full play, thus preventing the expression and settlement of administrative disputes through legal proceedings," Ma said. "The institutional value of settling administrative disputes in court to promote administration by law has yet to be fully realized."

Wang Zhenqing, former Vice President of the Beijing Higher People's Court, remembers that when the law took effect, some officials publicly said that they would "never sit in a defendant's chair."

Encouragingly, things have changed. In recent years, local governments around the country have encouraged government officials to defend themselves at administrative trials.

In most cities in east China's Jiangsu Province, for example, the practice has been institutionalized through official documents. Government officials in the city of Rugao are required to follow up and report on local administrative litigation lawsuits, and trial results are used to measure their job performance. This practice is controversial, though, and some say it may encourage administrative meddling in the judicial system.

Facing a government official in court can shake individual plaintiffs' confidence, said Yuan Yulai, a lawyer specializing in administrative litigation. He said that some of his clients are skeptical about the neutrality of courts.

"They debate among themselves whether or not to trust the courts when the courthouse is financed through government funding," Yuan said.

Moreover, according to Yuan, the accused often cite their obligations to fulfill tasks assigned by seniors or higher-level government agencies. This can be an excuse for infringing upon the interests of civilians, legal entities or other organizations.

Right to sue

In late December, the draft amendment to the Administrative Procedure Law underwent a first reading at a bimonthly session of the NPC Standing Committee.

New stipulations include instructions that more rights infringement cases are to be accepted by courts.

Courts shall accept lawsuits in which administrators have infringed ownership or rights to use natural resources such as forests, pasture, mineral reserves, mountains and water, according to the draft. It also states that courts shall accept lawsuits concerning infringement of rural land contracts and management rights, illegal fundraising, unlawful collection or requisition of property, and unfairly apportioned fees.

A court should make clear any reason for refusing an administrative lawsuit and it should file a lawsuit within seven days after accepting a claim, according to the draft.

Hu Jianmiao, a professor with the Chinese Academy of Governance, said that the occasions on which citizens could sue governments have been increased and more clearly defined in the draft.

Hu regards the revisions as the most important parts of the law, balancing the interests of citizens, administrative bodies and courts.

As many administrative bodies simply refuse to implement or ignore court rulings which favor citizens, the draft stipulates that administrative bodies' refusal to execute rulings should be made public.

Hu believes that public supervision is an effective force in the Internet era. Once a refusal is made public, the concerned government agency will be harshly criticized and its leaders will run the risk of being removed, so difficulties in execution should be significantly alleviated.

Ma with China University of Political Science and Law suggests setting up independent administrative courts to prevent government agencies from intervening in the trial process.

"Setting up independent administrative courts is an option for the future litigation system reform. It is the easiest way to shut out intervention from local government organs because it doesn't need complicated procedures such as revising the Constitution or the Organic Law of the People's Courts but only requires making some amendments to the current Administrative Procedure Law," Ma said.

The current Administrative Procedure Law also stipulates that administrative proceedings cannot be mediated.

Ma said that the prohibition was adopted due to two considerations. First, administrative power is a kind of public power, which administrative authorities cannot dispose of and concede as they wish. Second, if allowed to mediate, courts or administrative organs may force the plaintiffs to accept unfavorable mediation results.

"But, it's impossible to forbid mediation in practice. In fact, all courts engage in mediation, and just avoid the term," Ma said. "It's time to consider permitting mediation."

Email us at: yinpumin@bjreview.com