The pioneer of "citizen suing official" — The ultimate revelation of the "Sea Palace" case (Serial 17)
3. A Pioneer in "People Suing Officials"
For a Chinese society with a millennia-old tradition of officialdom-centric culture, the spirit of chivalry is especially important for lawyers engaged in administrative litigation. The Administrative Litigation Law promulgated in 1989 was undoubtedly a milestone in the advancement of the rule of law in China. Yet even before that, lawyers at Zhiming had already handled pioneering “citizens suing officials” cases, albeit in the form of civil litigation at the time. Detailing this case here not only helps us gain a deeper understanding of the cultivation of the chivalrous spirit embodied by lawyer Wang Tengfeng, but also provides a living example of grassroots legal practice during the early years of China's reform and opening-up.
On August 12, 1986, shortly after the autumn season began and the summer fishing moratorium had ended, six fishing households from the Shuanghe production team in Datong Town, Tongling County, Tongling City, Anhui Province, including Zhang Ziyu, followed their customary practice of setting up fish barriers with nets in the Xiaoxin River waters to prepare for sideline fishing activities. At 5 p.m., staff from the Qingtong River Fishery Administration Station arrived at the scene in a fishery patrol boat to carry out administrative law enforcement. They anchored the boat in the middle of the fishermen's barriers, attempting to prevent them from continuing their work. A heated dispute then broke out between the six fishing households and the fishery enforcement staff, during which the administrators confiscated several net pieces from the fishermen, while the fishermen, in turn, took two gangplanks and a punt pole from the patrol boat. That evening, the fishery enforcement staff left the boat anchored at the barrier site and abandoned it, causing the vessel to run aground the next day. Four days later, a joint investigation team composed of the county's fishery, public security, and town government departments arrived at the site to inspect the dispute. After education and criticism from the investigation team, the local production team fishermen voluntarily removed the fishing gear placed in the river, and the six households also returned the two gangplanks and the punt pole they had taken four days earlier. However, the county fishery bureau neither returned the confiscated fishing nets nor provided any further explanation, and the six fishing households decided not to pursue the matter further.
Just as everyone thought the matter would be dropped, the Tongling County Fishery Bureau issued an administrative penalty document named "No. 114" on September 13, penalizing the actions of six fishing households, including Zhang Ziyu, who defied fishery administration on August 12. The specific penalties included: 1. The six fishing households were required to compensate 70% of the 259 yuan in direct economic losses caused by the fishery administration vessel running aground; 2. Zhang Ziyu was fined 40 yuan, and the production team leader was fined 30 yuan; 3. From then on, the Second Production Team of Shuanghe in Laozhen had to obtain approval before setting up fish traps in Xiaoxin River.
The penalty decision immediately sparked strong reactions from six fishing households including Zhang Ziyu upon its announcement, and the members of Shuanghe Production Team were also indignant about the county fisheries bureau's penalty decision. After complaints to local government departments proved fruitless, some open-minded production team members began seeking legal channels to resolve the issue. However, given that the opposing party was a local government functional department, compounded by the special social environment of the early reform and opening-up period following the Cultural Revolution, many senior lawyers in Tongling County and city were unwilling to take on this thorny case of an individual suing the government. The six fishing households, having exhausted all avenues for help, fortuitously found Attorney Zhiming, who was working at the Tongling County Legal Advisory Office. After patiently understanding the facts of the case, the young attorney Zhiming, still in his twenties, driven by innate sense of justice, immediately declared to the fishermen with righteous conviction: "The county fisheries bureau's penalty against the fishermen is erroneous! The legitimate rights and interests of the fishermen ought to be upheld!" The elated six fishing households then requested that Attorney Zhiming serve as their entrusted representative in the case, and out of his own sense of justice, Attorney Zhiming gladly accepted the case. In this way, with the help of Attorney Zhiming, led by fisherman Zhang Ziyu, jointly with Shuanghe Production Team and Laozhen Production Team, they filed an administrative lawsuit against the county fisheries bureau—although at that time there was no Administrative Procedure Law yet, so it was still filed under the name of a "civil lawsuit."
Unexpectedly, resistance was encountered at the very beginning of the lawsuit. The presiding judge assigned to the case at the county court was the deputy chief judge of the Economic Division, a former factory director of the county grain and liquor factory who had switched careers to the bench. As soon as he took on the case, he instinctively felt it was troublesome and difficult, as there was no legal basis to rely on, and he was also hindered by pressure from government departments. So the deputy chief judge braced himself and went to find Lawyer Zhiming, using both persuasion and coercion to "work on" him: "This case is very troublesome, and it offends the government. You're still young and just starting out—why not just drop it and have the clients withdraw their lawsuit? You can't win a case against the government!" Hearing the deputy chief judge's well-intentioned advice, a surge of chivalrous passion for defending justice welled up in Lawyer Zhiming's heart, and he immediately responded to the judge with great righteousness: "Withdrawing the lawsuit is absolutely impossible! Regardless of winning or losing, since the citizens' rights and interests have been infringed upon and they have been penalized by the government, and they believe the penalty does not match the facts—that the government's punishment is wrong—then I have a duty and obligation to support them in filing suit. Everything shall be decided according to legal adjudication!" After being firmly rejected by Lawyer Zhiming, the deputy chief judge felt somewhat ashamed, yet also admired the young lawyer's earnest spirit in upholding the law, and had no choice but to pull himself together and seriously handle this hot-potato case of a private citizen suing the government!
To prepare for this unprecedented lawsuit, young Attorney Zhiming conducted extensive research on fisheries administration laws and regulations, acquired substantial knowledge of fisheries administration, consulted with the court, and made repeated visits to the scene for investigation, obtaining a large body of detailed and substantive evidence. Attorney Zhiming also, based on the results of repeated on-site inspections, drew a detailed diagram showing the positional relationship between Qingtong River and Xiaoxin River, which was submitted to the court to demonstrate the legitimate rights and interests of the six fishermen households and the unlawful administrative actions of the County Fisheries Bureau in exceeding its statutory authority — this could well be regarded as one of the earliest attempts at the so-called "visual litigation" technique so fervently championed in today's litigation lawyer community! At the same time, given that this case was the first "citizen suing official" case in the Tongling region (and possibly one of the earliest administrative disputes of this kind in the entire province or even the whole country), the court also attached great importance to it. After accepting the case, the county court president carefully reviewed the on-site survey diagram and related written opinions submitted by Attorney Zhiming before the court session, then personally led the presiding judges to the dispute site to re-investigate and verify the facts of the case, and personally presided over the courtroom during the hearing. In addition, a number of local political and legal leaders, as well as the director of the defendant County Fisheries Bureau, also attended the hearing as observers. For a time, the small courtroom was packed so tightly with people that it was completely jam-packed.
In court, Attorney Zhiming put forward two points of representation: 1. Xiaoxin River is a tributary of the lower reaches of Qingtong River, flowing through the areas of Laozhen and Shuanghe production brigades in Datong Town, Tongling County. When the water does not rise, it is basically unable to navigate with the main channel of Qingtong River, instead forming a relatively independent body of water. Moreover, as early as 1962, during the "Four Fixes" (referring to the policy implemented in the early 1960s of fixing labor, land, draught animals, and farm tools to production teams for their use), it had already been determined that the management rights of Xiaoxin River belonged to the Laozhen and Shuanghe production brigades of Datong Town. Meanwhile, in 1986, Laozhen and Shuanghe production brigades contracted Xiaoxin River to six fishermen, including Zhang Ziyu, for fishing purposes. All of this is consistent not only with the natural condition of Xiaoxin River as a relatively independent body of water, but also with the spirit of Article 9 of the Constitution and the five Central Document No. 1 directives. 2. Historically, the masses of the Laozhen and Shuanghe production brigades have always had the custom of laying nets and setting up screen barriers across the river. The six fishermen, including Zhang Ziyu, who enjoyed contractual management rights over the waters, legally and reasonably caught fish by laying nets and setting up screen barriers after the autumn water receded and outside the closed fishing season, in accordance with historical customs. The Qingtong River Fishery Administration Station exceeded its management scope by preventing the six fishermen, including Zhang Ziyu, from laying nets and setting up screen barriers. Such conduct itself infringed upon the legitimate rights and interests of the production brigades. Moreover, its subsequent decision to require the plaintiffs to bear responsibility and compensate for losses, imposing fines on the plaintiffs and interfering with their normal production activities, was unlawful!
The defendant, the county fisheries bureau, which found itself on the defensive in court, was unwilling to accept this. They seized on the fishermen's aggressive behavior at the law enforcement scene and blew it out of proportion, attempting to highlight and magnify the fishermen's alleged violent obstruction of law enforcement, while consistently avoiding any discussion of the legality issues in the government's enforcement actions. However, Attorney Zhiming remained composed in the face of danger. While upholding the primary argument that the fishermen's legitimate rights and interests could not be infringed upon or deprived, he also presented and exposed one by one in court the facts of how the fisheries administration officers had brutally enforced the law that day, crudely confiscated the fishermen's property, and subsequently abandoned their posts, causing the fisheries administration vessel to run aground. He clearly demonstrated to the court that the violent law enforcement by the fisheries administration station personnel, which exceeded their management authority, was the chief culprit that triggered this dispute and conflict, and was also the root cause of the direct economic losses. The defendant, the county fisheries bureau, fell into an even more passive position. The defendant's attorney was at a loss for what to do, and even resorted to bluffing in court, intimidating the young Attorney Zhiming by claiming that his open accusation of government departments violating the law in court constituted defamation and should be subject to legal sanctions. But Attorney Zhiming did not flinch in the slightest. And so, the case proceeded from the morning, through the court investigation phase, and only entered the courtroom debate phase in the afternoon when the court resumed session. The two sides went back and forth in court, locked in sharp confrontation, engaging in seven rounds of repeated struggle and full debate, not stopping until nearly 8 o'clock in the evening.
Although the county fisheries bureau mobilized local government and people's congress officials to intervene after court adjourned that day, because Attorney Wang Tengfeng had thorough evidence and persuasive reasoning, the court set aside all interference and fully adopted his arguments. Ultimately, the Tongling County People's Court issued its first-instance judgment on July 24, 1987, supporting all claims of the plaintiffs represented by Zhiming Law Firm. It not only revoked the "Document No. 114" administrative penalty issued by the Tongling County Fisheries Bureau and exempted the six fisherman households including Zhang Ziyu and the production team from administrative penalties, but also explicitly affirmed in the judgment the management and use rights that the Shuanghe Production Team held over Xiaoxin River (Figures 73-76). Such a high-profile "citizen suing official" case, with the judgment favoring the "citizen" over the "official," was unacceptable to the county fisheries bureau, which then submitted a twelve-page "Appeal Petition" to the Tongling Intermediate People's Court. Attorney Zhiming responded with a tit-for-tat, well-reasoned defense. The deputy chief judge of the Economic Division of the Tongling County Court, who had initially tried to dissuade Attorney Zhiming, had long since been moved by the attorney's chivalrous spirit and conscientious approach during case handling, and had now become his "ally." He firmly and enthusiastically encouraged Attorney Zhiming, saying: "Don't fear the government's appeal—even if they appeal, they still can't win!" Ultimately, in its final judgment issued on March 18, 1988, the Tongling Intermediate People's Court still found that the county fisheries bureau's penalty decision against the farmers was "inconsistent with the facts and lacking legal basis," and should be revoked pursuant to law, thereby upholding the outcome of "citizen" winning over "official"! The complete victory in this case not only created a typical successful precedent of "citizen suing official" in the local area, but also earned the young and newly-joined Attorney Zhiming a reputation as a gallant, resourceful, and courageous lawyer, drawing widespread acclaim and discussion from the local community.
The first Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China was not passed until April 4, 1989, two or three years after the aforementioned case approach, by the Second Session of the Seventh National People's Congress, and came into effect on October 1, 1990. This meant that when Zhiming lawyer represented the six fishing households and the production brigade in their administrative lawsuit against the County Fisheries Bureau, the case could only be conducted within the framework of the Civil Procedure Law at that time. The sole legal basis was Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Law (for Trial Implementation), promulgated in 1982, which provided: "Where the law provides that administrative cases are to be heard by the people's courts, the provisions of this Law shall apply." With no specific procedural legal basis and no precedent to follow, Zhiming lawyer, then just over twenty years old, was like a newborn calf unafraid of tigers. Relying on a spirit of bold innovation, a sense of justice in championing the underdog, tireless efforts in evidence collection, and in-depth study of legal grounds, supplemented by emerging talent in courtroom debate, he ultimately won this lawsuit between parties of extremely unequal standing and secured fairness for ordinary citizens. This "citizen suing official" case not only caused a sensation locally and served as an excellent demonstration for advancing law-based government administration and protecting the lawful rights and interests of the people, but was also of groundbreaking significance nationwide, providing valuable practical experience for China's fledgling administrative litigation system. Zhiming lawyer's handling of this case came more than a year earlier than the so-called first "farmer suing county magistrate" case that was widely reported by the media at the time and caused a national sensation—the case of Bao Zhengzhao v. Cangnan County People's Government of Zhejiang Province concerning the forced demolition of his house.
(To be continued)
