A court case involving a Chongqing frog farmer, real estate developers, local government officials and the Chongqing courts has stirred up response among netizens. Three Chinese legal scholars have responded to the incident, and what they think it means for the future of China’s legal system.

The Chongqing farmer, surnamed Fu, was the owner of a frog farm that had been claimed for use in part of a local land development project called Lidu Industrial Area. Because both parties had yet to reach final agreement in regards to compensation, Fu continued to raise frogs on his farm. At the end of 2008, a construction company was authorized by the local government to begin drilling and blasting on his property. The forceful blasts resulted in a substantial loss of frogs, and Fu subsequently filed a suit against the construction company demanding compensation with the local court in Chongqing’s Peiling District. The Lidu Industrial Area’s Management Committee – part of the local government – then sent a ‘formal request’ to court officials, warning them against continuing the processing of the lawsuit. After receiving what Chinese netizens now dub the ‘most powerful formal request’ from the Lidu Project Management Committee, Chongqing courts rejected Fu's requests to pursue the suit.

 

Impartiality of the legal system cannot be weighed with a note slipped under the door
This is a dramatic ruling. As part of the local government, the Management Committee for the land development project actually forwarded a ‘formal request’ to the local courts with 'warnings' about “if the courts will not take heed of our opinions”, “if you choose to go about your own ways”, “choose to take heed of the above mistaken evidence presented and make a ruling based upon that”, etc. After Fu's filings had been officially rejected by local courts, the committee then come up with excuses, saying that they were just “expressing their opinions.” It was entirely up to the courts if they wanted to listen or not. What arrogance and overstepping of power!

What’s even more melodramatic is the comment made by the vice chief justice of the court after the 'formal request' note had been discovered and disclosed. He said that the note had been slipped under the door – obviously trying to deny its relevance. Yet he took personal interest in the note, and required the presiding judge of an ongoing civil suit to take heed of the document and rule accordingly. A note slipped under the door, one that hasn't been publicly shown or debated, is neither testimony nor document of evidence relevant to the case; and yet, it has been officially filed away and became the most decisive piece of document in determining the final ruling of the lawsuit. It may also be a important document in the intermediate court ruling following a petition motion filed by Fu.

The whole matter might have otherwise sounded ludicrous if the 'formal request' by a local government office had not in fact made a decisive impact on the court's rulings of a civil case.

Fu's case is a civil dispute, one in which Fu was demanding compensation because the construction company's demolition blasts cost him substantial loss of his frogs. Because it is in fact a civil matter, there is absolutely no reason for the local government to get involved. And yet, the Management Committee of Lidu Development Area said that they had good reason to get involved because the demolition initiated by the construction company had been approved by the committee, thus, if the company were ruled as being responsible, then the government must in the end pay for compensation to Fu. But the point to make here is that demolition blasts are always high risk and are thus liable for claims no matter if the construction company is at fault or not. If financial loss results due to the blasts, then compensation must be made. It doesn't matter whether the government was involved with the operation, compensation must be made if there are damages resulted from the blasts all the same. But instead, local government officials interjected themselves into the case, bending the law and overriding the rules in their favor – completely disregarding what legal implications this may have on impartiality of law.

This is a case where a citizen is up against government officials in a fight to defend his rights, and armed with legal weapons. Fu was still stepped all over; he has lost to super power, power wielded by local government officials that were apparently above the law. Officials have painted a picture of Fu where he's said to be greedy, always looking for cracks and backdoors in the legal system to use to his advantage. Fu is said to have a prior record for breaking the law. But the truth is, when it comes to this case, Fu has abided by all the rules and done everything required of him by law. He has proper business license for his frog farm, has done everything according to proper procedure while documenting the loss he has sustained with his frogs due to demolition blasts, has made the proper claim demanding legal compensation for his loss, and was never disruptive in court or elsewhere. Plain and simple, Fu was just defending his proper rights.

Impartiality and fairness of law does not weigh on a note slipped under the door; that note signified a reckless disregard for law over power. The government should not be able to encroach on citizens' proper rights, using what they deem to be public good as a basis for argument and excuse, and they should not be allowed to slander an all too rightful attempt at properly defending a person's right to his property. On one side is a frog farmer trying to defend his rights properly, on the other side is a repeated attempt at overriding the law with super power. As one of the local officials himself said about the case, “If farmers were all so able to use the law [like Fu], then this means that government offices must be better prepared with administering the law.” Then, why don't they do as they say – administer the law?
---- Hei Ge’er

Next: Why the local management committee was able to influence court ruling?

Why the local management committee was able to influence court ruling
When it comes to local government interjecting into a court ruling with a 'formal request' letter, there was another, similar case in 2007. The case involved a CEO of a mining company in Inner Mongolia who was prosecuted for illegal possession of a firearm. In that case, the local government had interjected with a 'formal request', suggesting that the court give the defendant proper leniency when sentencing.

Some people have said that management committee for Lidu Development Area overstepped their powers when they interjected, and influenced court rulings with a 'formal request' letter. This is true, because even though when the government is the defendant, they are also entitled to give a statement in their defense. The content and tone of the letter should not have been “coercing bordering on threatening” – attempting to influence ruling on the case with irrelevant details and issues. We can also note that the committee for Lidu Development Area has, in fact, no legal jurisdiction over the local courts of Peiling District; thus, they could only coerce by saying “this will only give plaintiffs the chance to take this further with petitions, and complicate matters in our dealing with three other farmers' complaints. We are sure that this is not in the court’s best interest, either.” In other words, if it were really the local government of Peiling District making the requests, they would not have made their demands with a letter – a phone call from a government official to the chief justice of Peiling courts is enough to suffice.

Even though the Management Committee for Lidu Development Area does not have proper jurisdiction over Peiling courts, they can sufficiently use the power of coercion by insinuating that the Peiling District government would want what's in the best interest for the entire area – and that includes the local courts. Also, the author of the 'formal request' letter, the deputy director of the management committee for Lidu Development Area, was once a judge with one of the intermediate courts in Chongqing. This in and of itself is ample evidence attesting to the fact that the administrative and judicial branches of government have always been overlapping and interlinked. Courts must consider what the rest of the government think when making rulings on relevant cases.

Thus, it is very much understandable why a judicial branch of the government, as exemplified by the Peiling courts, would feel very much threatened by a 'formal request' letter from the mere Management Committee of a local development project, as they must not go against 'public interests' shared by the rest of the government branches.
---- Yang Tao

Next: 'Formal request' letter reveals why it continues to be hard for citizens to bring suits against government

'Formal request' letter reveals why it continues to be hard for citizens to bring suits against government
There are always wins and losses with lawsuits, as judged with evidence and backed by relevant doctrines. But has Fu lost on account of law, or has he been brushed aside because there was an override of power – a super power that was above the law? The answer lies in a 'formal request' letter from a local project management committee forwarded to the Peiling district courts. The letter warned the courts to “not go about your own ways,” and to reject complaints made by the plaintiff – the language of the letter was been very much threatening and coercive. Has the letter influenced the final ruling? In the case about compensation for loss of frogs for farmer Fu, the judge heard the case five times and always come up short of making a final ruling. The presiding judge commented that the, “development committee and district government are interjecting themselves into this case,can't make a ruling just yet”. The answer is quite obvious here.

If it had not been for carelessness on part of the courts, and if Fu's attorney had not been checking the case files closely, then this 'most powerful formal request' letter would have never surfaced. And surfaced it did, revealing a great gaping hole in our legal system that accounts for why it is so hard for regular citizens to bring lawsuits against the government and officials.

It is not hard to understand why some courts are reluctant about hearing cases that may be connected to the government, why they would bend the law in favor of the government more often than not. This is exactly because the judicial system is very much hindered and influenced by other governmental powers. In cases like Fu's, local governments have tried “calling out for a talk,” writing notes, basically every tactic imaginable, warning the courts that it would be in their best interest to ignore some complaints as they interfered with some form of government interest or another. This 'formal request' letter is the best evidence attesting to this fact.

Laws build the backbone of a just society. It is also a non-debatable fact that it has become very hard for common citizens to file complaints against officials affiliated with the government in our country. In order to ensure that our society is just and complaints of citizens are heard and resolved promptly, and to uphold duly our country's laws and doctrines, it is not only imperative that the courts are properly managed and checked, it is also equally important to stop and prohibit local government offices from interfering with the judicial system.
---- Hui Mingsheng

Source: ifeng.com

Warning：The use of any news and articles published on eChinacities.com without written permission from eChinacities.com constitutes copyright infringement, and legal action can be taken.

Keywords: china frog case rule of law Chongqing Chongqing courts chongqing frog case Peiling frog case