On the supervision of the people's congress on the court from the comparison of Chinese and foreign inquiry systems

There are many puzzles about this relationship in academic circles. When some scholars describe that the court is "responsible and reports its work" to NPC, they all think that this relationship is stipulated by the Constitution and laws. In fact, the provisions of the Constitution and the law are inconsistent. 1. Different expressions in the Constitution 1954, Article 52 of the Constitution stipulates that the State Council is "responsible to the National People's Congress and reports on its work"; When the National People's Congress is not in session, he is responsible for the NPC Standing Committee and reports his work. Article 66 stipulates that local people's committees at all levels (local people's governments at all levels) are "responsible and report their work" to the people's congresses at the corresponding levels and the state administrative organs at the next higher level. Article 80 stipulates that the Supreme People's Court is "responsible and reports on his work" to the National People's Congress; When the National People's Congress is not in session, he is responsible for the NPC Standing Committee and reports his work. Local people's courts at all levels are "responsible and report their work" to the people's congresses at the corresponding levels. Articles 65-438+09 and 25 of the Constitution of 1975 and articles 30 and 42 of the Constitution of 1978 have the same provisions as those of the Constitution of 1954. 1982 Article 92 of the Constitution stipulates that the State Council is "responsible and reports on his work" to the National People's Congress; When the National People's Congress is not in session, he is responsible for the NPC Standing Committee and reports his work. According to article 128, the Supreme People's Court is responsible for NPC and the NPC Standing Committee. Local people's courts at all levels are "responsible" to the organs of state power that produced them. 2. Different Expressions in the Organic Law of the Court Article 17 of the Organic Law of the Court in 1979 stipulated that the Supreme People's Court was "responsible and reported on his work" to the National People's Congress and the NPC Standing Committee. Local people's courts at various levels are "responsible and report their work" to the people's congresses at the corresponding levels and their standing committees. The trial work of the people's courts at lower levels shall be supervised by the people's courts at higher levels. The judicial administrative work of the people's courts at all levels shall be managed by judicial administrative organs. "1983 Article 17 of the Law on the Organization of Courts only deleted the third paragraph of Article 17 of the Law on the Organization of Courts of 1979, that is," the judicial administrative work of people's courts at all levels shall be managed by judicial administrative organs ",and the rest shall be copied. 3. Conclusion The first three constitutions stipulate that the Supreme People's Court, like the State Council, is "responsible and reports to NPC and its Standing Committee", while Article 93 of 1982 Constitution stipulates that the State Council is "responsible and reports to NPC and its Standing Committee" and Article 128 stipulates that the Supreme Court is responsible to NPC and its Standing Committee, and the word "report" is deleted, which is the nature of constitutionalists to state organs. 1979, the Law on the Organization of Courts stipulates that courts should be "responsible and report their work" to the people's congresses at the same level and their standing committees, which is in line with the Constitution of 1978. However, after the constitution of 1982 made such an obvious change to this relationship, the Law on the Organization of Courts revised by the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) (NPC) still stipulates that the courts should be "responsible and report their work" to the people's congresses at the same level and their standing committees. This can't be said to be a disregard for this constitutional amendment, regardless of the objective existence of the fundamental law, which leads to a serious contradiction between this provision and Article 128 of the current Constitution. Theoretically speaking, "reporting work" is not suitable for the court. Because the judge is not responsible to the president, and the lower court is not responsible to the higher court, the possible consequence of the "report" is that if the report is not passed, the president of the court will bear certain responsibilities. It is unreasonable that the president of this court is responsible for the trial of the judges of this court and the lower courts are not responsible for his leadership. Therefore, the court should only be "responsible" for NPC, not "responsible and report its work". (III) Different Expressions about Democratic Centralism 1954 Article 2 of the Constitution stipulates that the National People's Congress, local people's congresses at various levels and other state organs practice democratic centralism. Article 3 of the Constitution of 1975 and Article 3 of the Constitution of 1978 both make the same provision. Article 3 of the 1982 Constitution stipulates that state organs practice the principle of democratic centralism. The National People's Congress and local people's congresses at various levels are democratically elected, accountable to the people and supervised by the people. The state administrative organs, judicial organs and procuratorial organs are all produced by the National People's Congress, responsible for it and supervised by it. The division of functions and powers between central and local state organs follows the principle of giving full play to local initiative and enthusiasm under the unified leadership of the central authorities. It can be clearly seen that the first three constitutions stipulate that all state organs practice democratic centralism, but they do not explain the meaning of this democratic centralism. In contrast, the provisions of the 1982 Constitution are more scientific, because it only stipulates the principle of democratic centralism for state organs, but not for all state organs. This is based on the scientific understanding of the nature of the exercise of state power by various state organs. "Party organizations with decision-making power and state organs with legislative power pursue the correct political direction and the scientific and legal justice and authority of major decisions, which requires brainstorming and careful consideration of decision-making issues." "Therefore, democratic centralism (committee system) based on the principle that the minority is subordinate to the majority is implemented in these institutions." "As the executive organ of state organs, state administrative organs pursue work efficiency. Require the concentration of power and action, [6] in contrast, the judiciary is that judges are personally responsible for laws and cases, not the president, and there is no legislature-style democracy or administrative-style centralization. Therefore, democratic centralism is not suitable for justice. 1982 article 3, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the constitution,