Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues of Administrative Litigation Evidence

Author: Wang Baofa
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2002-12-01
Features: The "Legal Interpretations of the People's Republic of China" series is a series of books organized and edited under the auspices of the Legal Affairs Commission of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. This series consists of a series of legal interpretations, written by relevant experts, scholars, and some legislative participants. The series adheres to the fundamental requirement of accurately reflecting the legislative purpose and legal provisions, striving to ensure the authority of views and the accuracy of content interpretation in each legal interpretation. As is well known, administrative litigation is a "government vs. citizen" lawsuit, and the issue of evidence is the core of the litigation process, the foundation of judicial judgment, and the decisive factor affecting the final outcome of the case. Every case of administrative litigation revolves around evidence collection, evidence presentation, cross-examination, and evidence authentication. Only by judging the truth of the facts based on evidence can the court correctly apply the law and fairly determine the right or wrong between the parties in administrative litigation. Since the promulgation of the Administrative Litigation Law in 1989, the issue of evidence in administrative litigation has always been a focus of attention. The Supreme People's Court's "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China" in 2000 summarized the experience of ten years of reform in the administrative litigation system and further refined the system. Meanwhile, the "Regulations of the Supreme People's Court on Issues of Evidence in Administrative Litigation" (hereinafter referred to as the "Administrative Litigation Evidence Rules"), which will take effect on October 1, 2002, is the first systematic judicial interpretation in China specifically addressing issues of evidence in administrative litigation. It highlights the spirit of reform, reflects the principles of modern rule of law and the requirements of joining the WTO, and is an important measure to achieve fairness and efficiency in China's administrative adjudication. Its implementation will undoubtedly create a new landscape for administrative adjudication and have a significant impact on better protecting the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons, and other organizations, better supervising administrative organs in exercising their powers in accordance with the law, and safeguarding the order of national administrative legal system. Therefore, learning and applying the "Administrative Litigation Evidence Rules" is not only the responsibility of judges but also of administrative staff, as well as the general public and legal persons. To facilitate the implementation of the "Administrative Litigation Evidence Rules," the author was commissioned by the Legal Publishing House to compile this interpretation of the "Regulations of the Supreme People's Court on Issues of Evidence in Administrative Litigation." The book follows the structural system of the "Administrative Litigation Evidence Rules," provides each article with a heading, and adopts a question-and-answer format to offer a comprehensive, concise, and popular introduction to the "Administrative Litigation Evidence Rules" in response to common evidence issues in administrative litigation practice. It serves as a "mini encyclopedia" for popularizing legal knowledge on evidence in administrative litigation. The book is not only of reference value for judges, administrative staff, and lawyers in learning and applying the "Administrative Litigation Evidence Rules" but also beneficial for citizens and legal persons in "citizens vs. government" lawsuits and resolving evidence issues in administrative litigation. The content of evidence in administrative litigation is extensive and rich, and the theory is profound and extensive. Moreover, some issues remain controversial and subject to intense debate among legal practitioners and scholars, requiring further exploration.