Laying Down the Law

Tang Hui， the moth- er of a 19-year-old woman from Hunan Province， who attempted to secure justice against two men who trafficked her then underage daughter into prostitution may return to her former life as a petitioner after a Supreme Court review of the case determined the men’s crime was not a capital offense.

“My previous years of petitioning were so I could see them sentenced to death，” she told State media after the ruling was announced. “I am very sad and disappointed at the judgment. I will turn to my lawyer and perhaps resume petitioning.”

Dubbed “Petitioner Mom，” Tang Hui has made her case several hundred times to officials both in Hunan Province and Beijing over the past seven years. From kneeling before her local chief of police to distributing flyers in Beijing， she brought her daughter’s case to national attention， actions that earned her criticism from conservatives who claimed that she was subverting judicial process.

“We should not make any illegal judg- ments due to public opinion or pressure from petitioners，” claimed the Supreme Court justice which has returned the case to the local court.

In March， the Chinese government issued new regulations on petitioning， denying citizens the right to petition over legal cases.

Petition Boom

According to the State Bureau for Letters and Calls （SBLC）， China’s highest body authorized to officially receive petitioners， the new regulations originated with a resolution at the Third Plenum of the 18th Cen- tral Committee of the Chinese Communist Party （CPC） held in November 2013， during which the government proposed to reduce Party and government interference in the judiciary.

The new regulations demand that the SBLC and its subordinate departments refuse to accept any petitions relating to legal disputes， and refrain from any interference in due process.

“It effectively means that court cases can no longer be initiated or promoted by senior officials or top-level administrative departments，” an official from the SBLC spoke to NewsChina on the condition of anonymity.

For millennia and regardless of changes in the national political system， Chinese people have generally retained the right to directly represent their grievances to officials by petitioning them one-to-one or appearing in person before higher-level magistrates. Popular belief is that the further up the Party and government ranks one goes， the likelier it is that one’s voice will be heard. From the imperial era to the modern day， China’s central leaders are typically held up as paragons of benevolent virtue while their local counterparts are broadly seen as irredeemably corrupt and self-interested.

Since 2000， when social problems arising from the transition out of a planned economy became more acute， and increasing openness emboldened grassroots protest， petitioners have flocked in increasing numbers to China’s capital to attempt to address complaints directly to the country’s top leadership.

Official statistics published in 2004 showed that petition departments at various levels heard 13.74 million petitions that year， with the number of petitioners to Beijing growing by nearly 60 percent. More recent data showed that petition departments nationwide now accept an average 600，000 petitions per month， around 60 percent of which are directly related to violations of law.

“Lacking a sound system of rule of law， we have concentrated too much power in the hands of senior officials，” remarked Li Fangqing， a judicial official from Hubei Province， in a report on petition reform. “Around 90 percent of petitions addressed by senior leaders or higher-level departments are resolved， leading people to prefer petitioning over the courts.”

Suppression and Corruption

Getting attention for one’s cause has led to many extreme and unorthodox measures characterizing modern petitioning in China. Petitioners kneeling naked outside government departments， blocking traffic or using violence have frequently led to major disruption and embarrassment to the State. Successive administrations’ unswerving obsession with “stability maintenance” has thus led to mounting pressure on local governments to do whatever they can to prevent “abnormal petitioners” from making it to the capital.

Few officials take the time to distinguish potentially dangerous activists from legal petitioners. In the last decade， numerous reports have emerged of legitimate petitioners being forced into mental hospitals or extrajudicial prison camps simply to spare the blushes of those in power （see： “Halfway House of Horrors，” NewsChina， March 2013， Vol 056）.

In August 2012， Petitioner Mom herself， Tang Hui， was sentenced to “re-education through labor” （laojiao in Chinese） for one and a half years for “disturbing social order.”According to the local government， she had camped out in the hall of the middle court of Hunan Province for 15 days and had also blocked the progress of vehicles from relevant departments in order to call attention to her daughter’s case.

A massive public outcry ensued， and Tang’s sentence was overturned on appeal due to a lack of evidence. However， some claim that it should not be possible for petitioners to influence the outcome of legal trials， and that China is failing to ensure that its justice is“blind，” thus undermining faith in the entire system. Despite continued public support for her cause， Tang was criticized harshly by some， particularly media outlets.

“The public should no longer support Tang Hui’s re-petitioning and build her into a ‘hero.’ Petitioners should aim to pursue justice and not place personal demands and animosity above the law，” commented State publication Global Times.

“The current petition system has misled the people into believing that the more dramatically they petition， the more likely it is that their demands will be met，” said Li Kejun， an anti-corruption official from Heilongjiang Province. “Meanwhile， the heavy responsibility for ‘safeguarding social stability’ has pushed local officials to resort to extreme measures， including bribery， simply to curb petitioning.”

During an investigation conducted at the end of 2013， Xu Jie， a vice director of the SBLC， was named as being suspected of accepting bribes. Media reports revealed that many local officials would bribe higher-level officials in order to clear receipt records for petitions a clean slate being a major factor in securing promotions.

Current reforms have proposed to remove the petition rate from performance appraisals for local officials and to abolish national league tables for petitions which reward provinces for reducing their annual number of petitions.

In order to encourage more people to directly turn to the judiciary for help in legal cases， 3，300 middle and high courts nationwide have now launched online appeal services and set up remote video links to communicate directly with petitioners.

According to Xu Erfeng， an official from the Commission of Politics and Law of the CPC Central Committee， which controls China’s judiciary， petitions to administrative departments relating to legal cases have fallen to 18 percent of the total received， compared to 44 percent last year. He claims that appeals made directly to courts have risen by 40 percent in the same period， data which he believed indicates that a growing number of petitioners are choosing to resolve disputes in court.

Too Little

However， despite the reforms， many believe campaigners like Tang Hui will return to petitioning if unsatisfied with a court judgment.

In its new regulations on petitions， the government designed a system of “compulsory settlement，” under which neither the courts nor petition departments will hear any cases in which a final judgment has been given in a court of law. If any petitioner involved in such cases continues to petition， the new text states， it becomes the responsibility of their local authority to resolve the dispute.

Such rules， according to the anonymous official from the SBLC， are designed to “defend the authority of law，” but critics argue that they are tantamount to using legal force to silence petitioners， and such measures are more likely to aggravate rather than resolve conflicts.

Consequently， yet another judicial reform has led to deadlock. China’s leaders continually reinforce their intention to establish rule of law， but as long as the Party and the government determine how， where and when the law applies， popular confidence in the judiciary remains weak.

“These reforms won’t take full effect unless the government designs a top-down scheme to improve the legal assistance， and tighten supervision of [judicial] officials，” Jiang Ming’an， a law professor from Peking University， told NewsChina.