Behind-the-Scenes Post-Trial Battle in the "Sea Palace" Case — The Ultimate Revelation of the "Sea Palace" Case (Part 23)
Part Two: A Lawyer's Chivalry — Legal Rescue of the "Sea Palace"
[2] 9. Post-Trial Undercover Struggle
More than twenty years have passed since the promulgation and implementation of the Administrative Litigation Law, yet the operation of the administrative litigation system has never achieved ideal results. One of the main reasons is that China's administrative power is excessively strong, while judicial power is excessively weak and lacks basic independence. Hamilton, a statesman from the founding period of the United States, made a very incisive remark on the issue of judicial independence in The Federalist Papers: "In the general course of human nature, a power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will. In any system where the financial resources of judicial personnel are placed at the mercy of the legislature's occasional bounty, the separation of judicial power from legislative power will never be achieved." This statement originally addressed the mutual independence of legislative and judicial power under the American separation of powers, but it is also highly apt for the issue of mutual independence between judicial power and administrative power in contemporary China. Under the current fiscal system, the personnel, finances, and material resources of the people's courts are directly controlled by local party and government departments, which determines that the people's courts find it very difficult to exercise administrative litigation jurisdiction over local government departments. The people's courts are unwilling to offend the government, so they are reluctant to accept "citizen suing official" cases; even when they do accept them, they rarely directly rule that government departments have lost the case, preferring instead to resolve them through mediation, or simply adopting the delaying tactic of prolonged mediation without judgment to force the plaintiff to withdraw the lawsuit; even in the few cases where the defendant is adjudged to have lost, it is very difficult to enforce the judgment against government departments. This is the root cause of the "difficulty in filing," "difficulty in adjudication," and "difficulty in enforcement" in administrative litigation.
Attorney Zhiming did not display the optimism that Guo had shown after the two court hearings, precisely because of his clear understanding of the current state of administrative litigation in China. What followed only confirmed Attorney Zhiming's concerns. With Zhang Guangbin's cooperation, Attorney Zhiming had long completed the collection, organization, and submission of evidence for the 50 million yuan claim, yet they waited in vain for notice of a new court session, and repeated inquiries yielded no definitive response from the court. Watching the offshore floating island, its upper structures largely demolished, drift desolately on the sea, battered by wind and waves, exposed to sun and rain, gradually turning into a ruined wasteland, Guo's heart was equally tormented. Meanwhile, the media's enthusiasm for the "Maritime Palace" case gradually faded away.
Two months later, Guo, instead of receiving a notice from the court, received an unusual invitation: Deputy Secretary-General Yu of the Shenzhen Municipal Party Committee wanted to meet him. It turned out that after a joint study by the municipal and district courts, they concluded that the Longgang District Oceanic Bureau would likely lose the case, and reported this to the Political and Legal Affairs Commission. Worried about the adverse effects and potential risks of losing the case, the Municipal Party Committee specially dispatched Deputy Secretary-General Yu to handle the matter and personally discuss a settlement solution with Guo. As a successful businessman, Guo was bold and daring in the business world, willing to fight hard, but he was also well aware that the powerful authority of Chinese government departments at all levels was not to be offended lightly. Therefore, when the government side took the lead in expressing an intention to settle, after a brief moment of thought, he immediately stated, "As long as the floating island is not demolished and is allowed to survive, I have no special demands!"
After receiving such a reply from Guo, Deputy Secretary-General Yu promptly reported the matter to the relevant leaders. Meanwhile, Lawyer Zhiming, who had been closely monitoring the litigation process, also received news from Guo at the earliest opportunity. Upon hearing Guo's "good news," Lawyer Zhiming remained silent for a long time. After hanging up the phone, he let out a long sigh. Since the government had begun to intervene, how could everything be so easily resolved?
Guo's magnanimity and tolerance did not bring about the "good reward" from the government department. The defendant, the Longgang District Economic Promotion Bureau, once again hardened its stance, even attempting to press forward in one go to completely destroy the "Sea Palace" that had survived for eight years, and thoroughly eliminate the possibility of being thrust back into the spotlight of public opinion. Sensing the shift in the other party's attitude, Guo came to his senses and finally realized the profound meaning behind the silence of the Zhiming lawyers earlier. He then turned to them for help once more, and the Zhiming lawyers did not decline but instead exerted their superb strategic skills to assist Guo in winning the final victory in his rights protection struggle. For such struggles for rights, the Zhiming lawyers were certainly no strangers. Over the years, they had handled administrative cases across the country. Although the legal awareness of local governments varied, each time, they managed to withstand pressure, relying on their exceptional legal expertise, skillfully responding, engaging in both wit and courage, and employing masterful strategies, ultimately upholding the fairness and justice of the law.
Seeing how persistently Attorney Zhiming fought for him, Guo, deeply moved, decided to mobilize his connections once again, inviting industry experts from across the country to hold a high-profile symposium on the "Sea Palace" case. The goal was to provide theoretical support for winning the case, pressure the government, and indirectly bolster Attorney Zhiming's legal维权 efforts. However, despite his best efforts to reach out to legal scholars with public influence, they all politely declined the invitation, wary of the media storm surrounding the "Sea Palace" and particularly cautious of the defendant's background—the Shenzhen municipal government. And so, the symposium idea died before it could even take shape. Upon learning this outcome, Guo felt somewhat disheartened. Attorney Zhiming remained silent for a long while before speaking with unwavering resolve: "I believe justice will prevail in the law!" His resilience reignited Guo's courage to keep fighting, and the two men clasped hands firmly in solidarity. Indeed, engaging in administrative litigation and openly opposing the government requires courage and a spirit of chivalry. Yet those renowned scholars, experts, or high-profile lawyers, who usually command great prestige, often hesitate, waver, or even shrink back when it comes to directly confronting the government in court. This is a natural reaction for most people and is understandable, given the deep-rooted influence of "officialdom supremacy" in Chinese society, where challenging governmental authority carries significant risks. As we will detail in Part Three of this book, Attorney Zhiming faced severe suppression from the Shenzhen municipal government merely for expressing views unfavorable to the government in the media regarding the "Sea Palace" case, which subsequently led to his defamation lawsuit against the Legal Affairs Office of the Shenzhen municipal government.
Faced with the long-delayed court hearing notice and judgment, Attorney Zhiming withstood external pressure and, in accordance with legal procedures, repeatedly sent letters to the court urging a prompt and fair ruling on the case. The persistence of Attorney Zhiming and Guo finally paid off. At the end of 2011, the deputy presiding judge of the Shenzhen Intermediate Court in charge of the division simultaneously summoned Guo and Attorney Zhiming, attempting to have an in-depth "exchange" with them regarding the "Sea Palace" case. The deputy presiding judge was clearly well-prepared, probing multiple times into the loopholes and deficiencies in the plaintiff's case from the previous two hearings, but each time Attorney Zhiming firmly rebutted him with solid evidence and sharp argumentation. After several rounds of probing, the deputy presiding judge had no choice but to give up. At that time, the situation was such that the court could neither rule against the government nor rashly rule against the plaintiff, so it had no choice but to continue employing the "delay" tactic, which is all too common in administrative litigation, hoping to wait for a change in circumstances or let the matter fizzle out.
We have titled this section "Behind-the-Scenes Struggles After the Trial." Readers may wonder why there are no scenes of leaping over rooftops or flashing blades, nor any sense of the chivalrous spirit or unique skills of Attorney Zhiming. Well, please read a blog post publicly released by Attorney Zhiming on February 6, 2012, in which he directly challenged Jiang Jianjun, then the district chief of Longgang District, Shenzhen, by name over the "Sea Palace" case. Can you not see, then, the heroic spirit and chivalrous dedication of Attorney Zhiming in daring to "pull the emperor off his horse" in defense of the authority of the law and fairness and justice?
An incident occurred in Longgang: the "Sea Palace." When we went to handle it at the time, the problems were very prominent, and the other party used certain media outlets to apply pressure. When we met to discuss it, we said that the court should adjudicate according to law, but it must certainly consider the impact and consequences after the judgment is rendered—if such illegal conduct could receive support from the law, that would be a tragedy for the law; if anyone could build an illegal maritime facility and the court would still support it, then we would no longer be the people's court, and in the future everyone would go build illegal structures at sea. The court is not an arena where someone uses legal maneuvering to engage in gamesmanship; rather, it represents the fairness and justice of society. This point must be truly grasped and carried out properly to ensure the healthy and harmonious development of society.
Yesterday, Jiang Jianjun, a deputy to the Municipal People's Congress and the District Mayor of Longgang, shared his views on the court's impartial handling of the "Sea Palace" case during a group discussion session.
Figure 88: Scan of Page A8 of Crystal Daily on January 12, 2012. The red rectangular box highlights the content of Jiang Jianjun's speech at the People's Congress.
Apparently, Jiang Jianjun, a representative of the Shenzhen Municipal People's Congress and the head of Longgang District, like many ordinary Chinese people we mentioned earlier in the "extended topic," does not know or understand the basic common sense that administrative litigation reviews only the defendant (government department), not the plaintiff (the administrative counterpart)!
This is the original blog post by Attorney Zhi Ming:
The "Sea Palace" case must not allow local government interference in judicial trials.
Refuting the Fallacy of Jiang Jianjun, Shenzhen Municipal People's Congress Representative and Longgang District Chief
According to media reports, at the Shenzhen People's Congress held before the Spring Festival, Mr. Jiang Jianjun, the District Mayor of Longgang District, openly expressed his views on the court's impartial handling of the "Sea Palace" case during a group discussion. He stated, "When we met to discuss this, we said that the court should adjudicate according to law, but it must consider the impact and consequences of the ruling... The court is not a venue where anyone can use legal techniques to engage in games; rather, it represents social fairness and justice. This point must be truly grasped and implemented to ensure the healthy and harmonious development of society." As the plaintiff's attorney in the "Sea Palace" case, I was alerted by a friend to review the district mayor's remarks. At first glance, I was extremely astonished, and then amazed. Although the district mayor's views are filled with claims of fairness and justice throughout, they are in fact permeated with two words: "legal ignorance," and at their core reveal hegemony and arrogance!
Let's briefly analyze Governor Jiang Jianjun's remarks and it will be clear at a glance:
First, District Chief Jiang said, "When we met to discuss the matter, we said..." — getting straight to the point, His Excellency the District Chief has openly revealed the inside story of how he used his authority to interfere with the law and suppress the law! How the court handles the "Sea Palace" case with impartiality is entirely the independent judicial power of the Longgang District People's Court to decide on its own. How can the head of the district government go above the court to deliberate and decide on the rights and wrongs of the "Sea Palace" case?! This is so absurd and laughable — not only does it openly admit that the authorities intend to bully the people with power, but it also exposes a swaggering arrogance that defies all laws, treating the law as if it were a plaything!
Secondly, District Chief Jiang said: "The court should adjudicate in accordance with the law, but must certainly take into account the impact and consequences after the judgment is rendered." This statement is not only self-contradictory in itself, but more importantly, it fundamentally negates the sacred authority of the court to adjudicate in accordance with the law. If the court should adjudicate according to the law, then how can one use "but must certainly take into account the impact and consequences after the judgment" to coerce and constrain the court's lawful adjudication?! Since the court adjudicates according to the law, its lawful judgment is of course paramount and must never be swayed by the likes and dislikes of certain people. Regardless of the impact and consequences the judgment may produce, so long as it is the correct conclusion of lawful and judicial process, it should naturally be rendered without hesitation! From this, it is abundantly clear that the core thrust of District Chief Jiang's remarks is that he does not approve of the court adjudicating according to the law, but rather wants the people's court to give full consideration to the face and feelings of His Honor the District Chief and his ilk — utterly unwilling to bear the consequences and impact of losing the lawsuit that may result from unlawful administration! What faintly flickers beneath this is the desperation and resentment of one who cannot bear to accept the outcome of defeat!
As a professional legal practitioner, I believe that the fairness and justice of the rule of law are fundamentally embodied in the fairness and justice of the judiciary, and first and foremost in the fairness and justice of legal procedures—this is the universally recognized "supreme principle" of the world. As an administrative litigation case—a "citizen suing the government" case—the "Sea Palace" case was heard and adjudicated by the People's Court through standardized judicial procedures. Regardless of whether the outcome is satisfactory, either party must only further protect and assert their legal rights through legal procedures, and must never resort to illegal means, including officials leveraging their dominant position to use official channels and resources to illegally interfere with the court's judicial work. As the head of a district, Jiang Jianjun should have upheld and complied with the law, and should never have used his power to interfere with the law, made high-profile statements, exerted illegal pressure, or influenced the normal judicial work of the district's People's Court. As a deputy to the People's Congress, Jiang Jianjun should have been even more knowledgeable about and compliant with the law, and should never have displayed the image of a legal illiterate, making erroneous remarks at the People's Congress that demonstrate ignorance of the law, suppress the law with power, and attempt to influence the normal judicial work of the district's People's Court!
Again, District Chief Jiang said: "The court is not a place where anyone engages in contests through the application of legal skills, but rather represents the fairness and justice of society; this point must be truly grasped to ensure the healthy and harmonious development of society." This instructive remark by District Chief Jiang reveals ignorance of and disrespect for the law. The court is, of course, the legally designated venue where legal professionals engage in contests through the application of law (including legal skills) — this is clearly and explicitly documented in writing from the Constitution down to the procedural laws of various departments. The court is by no means a place where legal illiterates engage in contests through crude force, nor should it ever become a venue for certain privileged figures to exercise power over the law through authority or to bully and deceive the people through hegemony! It must be a venue for contests over legal right and wrong, upholding fairness and justice!
From the above analysis, it is not difficult to see the real underlying reasons why the "Sea Palace" case has remained unresolved for so long after trial. From this, we can also discern that the defendant in the "Sea Palace" case cannot escape legal liability for administrative violations and errors. It is precisely for this reason that people have had the privilege of hearing the district chief's unlawful outcry.
As a legal professional with decades of experience, I firmly believe that in a society governed by the rule of law and a civil society, no one — whether official or citizen — has the right to stand above the law. Whether one suppresses the law with power or bullies the law with money, all must strictly abide by legal standards, and all matters of right and wrong must be determined through legal procedures by fair and independent judicial adjudication. We may and should apply our legal knowledge and skills with utmost care and diligence to discern and judge right from wrong, but we must never casually manipulate the law with power or wealth! Meticulously refining the application of law is a mark of professionalism and dedication; crudely playing with the law through personal connections and favoritism is a desecration of the rule of law!
I earnestly urge District Chief Jiang and fellow officials to maintain a calm mindset, lower your pride, return to the proper path of the rule of law, and await a fair judicial ruling: If the "Sea Palace" case truly involves administrative losses caused by unlawful government actions, then you should demonstrate magnanimity, engage in self-reflection, have the courage to take responsibility, and promptly correct and improve the regulatory conduct of all government departments, striving to avoid future violations and minimize errors. Only then can you truly live up to the status of local administrative leaders of a people's government, and only then can you meet the qualifications of People's Congress representatives. It is my hope that in the future, government leaders and People's Congress representatives will have fewer legal illiterates and more who respect and abide by the law. Only in this way can we truly and effectively safeguard the healthy and harmonious development of society on the right path!
(To be continued)
