I am delighted to be able to post here the text of Professor Tong Zhiwei's Concluding remarks at the joint seminar of the Chinese Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure Law Society [在中国宪法学和刑诉法学会联合研讨会上的总结发言] which were delivered 15 November 2017.
Entitled 在民主法治的基础上修改好监察法草案 [On the basis of democratic rule of law, amend the draft law on supervision], the remarks provide a summary of the points of concurrence by the leading Chinese academics in the constitutional and criminal law fields respecting the drat Supervision Law now being considered by Chinese officials. It is highly recommended for anyone interested in constitutional law, criminal law and developments of the law of China.
The text of the remarks in the original 中国语言follow along with a crude English translation (which will be cleaned up in the next few days).
在民主法治的基础上修改好监察法草案
——在中国宪法学和刑诉法学会联合研讨会上的总结发言
童之伟
宪法学和刑诉法学界各位同仁、各位专家，大家好！
承担做总结的任务是个辛苦活，得一直坚持认真听和做必要记录。这事原本该秦前红教授做，无奈他因下半场另有活动安排，只好我来顶替。当然，这也是因为大家信任我。顺便说一下，民主法治的基础是宪法，监察法草案在民主法治基础上修改就是严格根据宪法修改。
全国人大常委会2017年6月已做了一审的《中华人民共和国监察法（草案）》前几天终于公布征求意见了，它本应早点公布。我们宪法学和刑诉法学界的同仁读了草案，看来多数人是喜忧参半，喜的是终于有了一个初步的文本，忧的是其中问题较多。问题需要解决，存在问题就是动力，它很快促使宪法学和刑诉法学两个学科老中青三代人中一批有代表性的学者在北京友谊宾馆这个会议室里坐到了一起。我们开这个研讨会的目的，是希望以两个研究会联合的力量，对监察法草案做会诊，推动它的更新或完善。
今天的研讨会的重头戏，是德高望重的陈光中教授做《关于监察法草案若干修改意见》的主体演讲。陈先生说，进行国家监察体制改革，是党中央作出的反腐、防腐重大布置，是推进国家治理体系、治理能力现代化的重要举措。监察法草案有不少值得肯定的地方。当然，今天的学术研讨会目的在于根据宪法，研究和促进监察法草案的完善，所以主要针对的是它存在的缺憾或不足。陈先生在针对监察法草案提了八点具体修改意见后总结道，一年内完成《监察法》的制定工作过于急促，应当以两年为宜，用三年时间也不算多。
下面是我对陈先生提出的八点修改意见的简要概括：
1. 草案必须载明“根据宪法，制定本法”；
2，各级监察委员会必须每年向本级人民代表大会报告工作，接受全体人大代表的投票评价；
3.草案须增加尊重和保障人权的条款；
4.草案不可损害检察院独立行使检察权的宪法地位；
5. 草案应减少留置适用；留置应通知家属；刑事调查原则上适用刑事诉讼法；
6.调查阶段应允许律师介入；
7.从草案中拿掉损害检察院独立行使检察权的内容；草案应不对案件移送审查起诉后的程序做规定；
8.草案的修改由全国人大常委会主导。
此外，与会学者也完全赞同陈先生关于至少用两年时间完成《监察法》制定的主张。
在陈先生做主题演讲后，中国宪法学研究会会长韩大元教授和中国刑事诉讼法学研究会会长卞建林教授分别与谈，他们的与谈有力支持了陈光中先生的意见。当然，他们也都发表了各人自己的重要学术观点。我统计了一下，天总共有40来位专家学者依议程发言或自由发言，大家就监察法草案修改的一系列问题形成了广泛共识。首先，与会专家学者完全赞同陈光中先生提出的修改监察法草案的八点意见，支持他关于在两年内完成《监察法》制定的主张。例外，研讨会参与者们踊跃发言，还就陈先生没论及的许多问题达成了诸多共识。下面我根据自己的记录把这些共识按顺序罗列：
1.制定监察法事关每一个中国公民的基本权利，人人都应该关心；
2. 监察法草案一些规定不符合宪法，也不符合我国已批准加入的一些国际人权公约。
3. 监察法草案不仅应写明“根据宪法，制定本法”，而且要切实按这个标准修改；
4.在合宪性方面，除陈光中先生提到的外，其它还不少条款有疑问，应认真对待；
5.制定监察法不能走先违宪后修宪的路子；
6.监察法草案中国家监察机关的名称应该是人民监察委员会（秦前红教授专门来电要求说明：习近平同志早在庆祝全国人大成立60周年大会上讲话已讲过：“我们国家的名称，我们各级国家机关的名称，都冠以‘人民’的称号，这是我们对中国社会主义政权的基本定位。”）；
7. 监察法草案只提到监察机关内部“相互制约的工作机制”，没有规定与人民法院、人民检察院和公安部门的相互制约，也确实没体现相互制约；
8.反腐败最主要是反政治腐败的说法可能偏离反腐败的初衷，为防止反腐败脱轨，监察法草案对反腐败内容应有所界定；
9.从迄今为止的情况看，监察法制定过程的民主参与较之此前的法律制定削弱了；
10. 监察法草案在人权保障方面有些地方明显有所倒退；
11.没有人民的授权即宪法的规定不得设立国家机关，设监察委员会必须根据现行有效的宪法条款，否则有违宪之忧；
12.公职人员的有些权利适度减损并不违反法治和人权保障原则，但不能过度减损，不能克减宪法法律明确规定的公民基本权利，尤其不能克减刑事诉讼法保护的人的权利，因为这些权利对于人来说是基础性的；
13. 监察法草案规定的留置、搜查对象，实际上超越了公职人员的范围，这些内容有违宪法比例原则；
14. 监察法草案起草班子没有足够法律专家，专业结构也不合理，里面缺少宪法和刑事诉讼法两个学科的知名专家；
15.留置不应由书记签字，书记签字使得同级人民检察院和人民法院不可能独立行使监察权和审判权；
16.监察法草案一方面规定监察机关依法独立行使监察权，同时官方媒体又广为宣传留置被调查对象由市委书记等党的书记签字批准的做法，自相矛盾；到底何谓独立行使监察权，草案应规定清楚；
17，对人大代表、法官、检察官等人员的监督，只应限于贪腐行为，不应扩大到其他方面；要尊重人民代表大会、法院、监察院按其性质通常拥有的自治管理范围。
18.监察委员会向其他党政机关派驻机构和人员不合宪法精神；若说有监督权就派驻机构和人员，那么各级人大和人民检察院都有权监督监察委员会的工作，监察法草案更应该规定各级人大向监察委员会派驻监督机构和人员，检察院也一样；
19. 如果说监察委员会对各级人大的监督是针对个人的，不是针对国家权力机关的，那就不应该向这个国家机关派驻机构和人员；
20.监察法草案与宪法、刑诉法和其他相关法律相互抵牾处甚多，内容结构太乱，规定太笼统，显得起草很草率；
21.监察机关的人员涉嫌职务犯罪，应由人民检察院独立侦查；个人和机构针对监察机关人员涉嫌职务犯罪的举报或检举，应由人民检察院受理，为此目的，刑法和刑事诉讼法可能都得修改；
22.监察法立法宜细不宜粗，草案应注意这个要求，不能给今后的监察解释留下太多空子；
23. 从草案的规定看，监察机关权力太大，且既缺乏来自官方的权力制约，也缺乏来自社会和公民的监督，修改监察法草案时对此状况可能造成的不良后果，应有足够防范。
在今天的讨论中，有学者在以下问题上发表了一些观点，但同其他与会学者意见分歧较大，没有形成共识：
1.关于有没有必要制定监察法；
2.关于公职人员权利克减的范围大小；
3.关于宪定基本权利中哪些是个人可以决定放弃的，哪些不是；
4.在何种情况下应修宪；
5. 监察法的内容是否受我国参加的国际公约的约束；
6.中央监察委员会主任应否由国家主席兼任；
7. 中央监察委员会主任的任期要不要设定限制；
8. 中央监察委员会主任的任期若设限，应该在宪法中限制还是在监察法中限制；
9.监察法对领导干部财产公示是否应有所规定；
10.地方各级监察委员会是实行双重领导好还是实行垂直领导好。
各位同仁、各位专家，我在参会和茶歇交流过程中感到，我们今天的会议形成了三点总体性意见和期待，它们是：
1.监察法草案远未体现宪法精神，没能贯彻民主和法治原则，不少规定明显与宪法的规定相抵触，存在太多合宪性争议；
2.监察法草案与刑事诉讼法等法律的关系，在许多地方没有理顺；
3.从时间表、路线图看，制定监察法的时间安排太仓促，应以两年或更长时间为宜。
我的总结发言就说这些。今天的研讨会这样的总结是否全面准确，有没有表述不当的地方，请各位指教。有不同意见请告诉我，私下指出也欢迎。这个总结发言是要发表的，说明一下。谢谢各位！
__________
On the basis of democratic rule of law, amend the draft law on supervision
- Concluding remarks at the joint seminar of the Chinese Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure Law Society
Tong Zhiwei
Constitutional law and criminal law jurisprudence Colleagues, experts, everyone!
To undertake the task of summing up is a hard work, we must always listen carefully and make the necessary records. This matter was originally done by Professor Qin Qianhong, but because of the second half of his activities there are arrangements, but I have to replace. Of course, this is because we trust me. Incidentally, the foundation of democracy and the rule of law is the constitution. The revision of the draft law on supervision based on the rule of law and democracy is strictly based on the constitutional amendment.
A few days before the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress made its first trial in June 2017, the "Law of the People's Republic of China on Supervision (Draft)" was finally published for comment. It should have been announced earlier. Our constitutional law and criminal law jurisprudence colleagues read the draft, it seems most people are mixed, hi finally has a preliminary text, the worry is that there are more problems. The problem needs to be solved. The existing problems are the impetus. It quickly prompted a group of representative scholars from both the constitutional and criminal law jurisprudence groups to come together in the conference room of Beijing Friendship Hotel. The purpose of this seminar we open is to hope that with the joint efforts of the two seminars, we will consult the draft Ombudsman Act and promote its updating or improvement.
The highlight of today's seminar is the keynote speech by Prof. Chen Guangzhong, who is highly respected, who made some revisions on the draft law on supervision. Mr. Chen said that the reform of the state supervisory system is a major anti-corruption and anti-corruption arrangement made by the party Central Committee and an important measure for promoting the state governance system and the modernization of governance capabilities. There are quite a few places to be sure about the draft law on supervision. Of course, the purpose of today's academic seminar is to study and promote the perfection of the draft law on supervision under the Constitution, so the main purpose of the symposium is to address its shortcomings or deficiencies. After making eight specific comments on amendments to the draft law on monitoring, Mr. Chen concluded that the formulation of the "Law on Supervision" within one year was too rapid and should be carried out in two years and not more than three years.
Here is a brief summary of my eight suggestions made by Mr. Chen:
1. The draft must state "the enactment of this Act in accordance with the Constitution."
2. The supervision committees at all levels must report their work to the people 's congress at the corresponding level every year and accept the vote evaluation of deputies to the NPC.
3. The draft should increase the provisions that respect and safeguard human rights;
4. The draft must not undermine the constitutional status of procuratorates in procuratorial power independently;
5. The draft should be reduced to apply for detention; detention should be communicated to family members; criminal investigations apply in principle to the Code of Criminal Procedure;
6. The investigation phase should allow lawyers to intervene;
7. Remove from the draft the contents of the procuratorial power of attorney-at-liberation; the draft shall not provide for the procedure after the case is transferred for examination and prosecution;
8. The draft amendment is led by the NPC Standing Committee.
In addition, all participating scholars also fully agreed with Mr. Chen's proposal to complete the monitoring law in at least two years.
After Mr. Chen gave a keynote speech, Prof. Han Dayuan, president of China Constitutional Law Society, and Prof. Jianmin Bian, president of China Society of Criminal Procedural Law, respectively made speeches and their interviews strongly supported the opinion of Mr. Chen Guangzhong. Of course, they also each published their own important academic point of view. I counted a total of 40 experts and scholars on the agenda, speaking on their own terms or freely speaking. All formed a broad consensus on a series of issues concerning the revision of the draft law. First of all, the participating experts and scholars fully agreed with the eight-point opinion raised by Mr. Chen Guangzhong on the draft of the supervision law and supported his claim that the "supervision law" be completed within two years. Exceptions were made by the participants of the seminar and many consensuses were reached on many of the issues that Mr. Chen did not address. Below I put these consensus in order according to their own record:
1. The development of the law of supervision shall be concerned with the basic rights of every Chinese citizen and should be of concern to all.
2. Some provisions of the draft law on monitoring are not in conformity with the Constitution nor do they comply with the number of international human rights conventions to which my country has ratified it.
3. The draft law on supervision should not only state "the enactment of this law in accordance with the Constitution," but should be effectively revised in accordance with this standard;
4. In terms of constitutionality, there are still many other articles in addition to those mentioned by Mr. Chen Guangzhong who have doubts and should be taken seriously;
5. The development of supervision law can not take the first unconstitutional constitutional amendment;
6. The name of the state supervisory authority in the draft law on supervision should be the People's Procuratorate (Professor Qian Qinhong's call specifically: Comrade Xi Jinping stated in his speech at the congress of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China that "the name of our country, The names of state organs at all levels are all given the title of "people," which is our basic orientation of the Chinese socialist regime. ");
7. The draft supervision law refers only to the "mutually restrictive working mechanism" within the supervisory authority and does not stipulate the mutual restraint with the people's court, the people's procuratorate and the public security department, nor does it really reflect the mutual restraint.
8. The statement that anti-corruption is mostly anti-political corruption may deviate from the original intention of anti-corruption. In order to prevent the derailment of anti-corruption, the draft law on supervision and supervision should define the anti-corruption content.
9. Judging from the circumstances so far, the democratic participation in the development of the supervisory law has weakened over the previous legal formulation.
10. There has been a clear reversal of some aspects of the protection of human rights in the draft law on supervision;
11. Without the authorization of the people, constitutional provisions may not establish a state organ, and the commission must be unconstitutional under the existing constitutional provisions;
12. The modest derogation of some rights of public officials does not contravene the rule of law and the guarantee of human rights, but can not be unduly detrimental to the derogation of citizens' fundamental rights as expressly stipulated in constitutional law. In particular, they can not be derogated from the rights of those protected by criminal procedure law, Rights are fundamental to people;
13. The objects of detention and search as stipulated in the draft law on monitoring have in fact gone beyond the scope of public officials and these elements violate the principle of proportionality in the Constitution.
14. The draft law drafting team does not have enough legal experts and the professional structure is unreasonable. There are no well-known experts in both the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Law.
15. Lien shall not be signed by the secretary, and the signature of the secretary makes it impossible for the people's procuratorate and the people's court at the same level to independently exercise the power of supervision and jurisdiction;
16. On the one hand, the draft Ombudsman Law stipulates that the supervisory organ independently exercises its supervisory power in accordance with the law. At the same time, the state media widely publicizes the fact that the object under investigation is signed and ratified by party secretaries and other party secretaries. In the end, The draft should be clearly defined;
17. The supervision over people's congress deputies, judges, prosecutors and other personnel should only be limited to corruption and should not be extended to other aspects. The scope of self-government usually held by people's congresses, courts and supervisory courts should be respected.
18. If the commission has the right to supervise the establishment of institutions and personnel, the people's congresses and people's procuratorates at all levels shall have the right to supervise the work of the commission. The supervision of the draft law should be more regulated People's congresses at all levels have supervisory bodies and personnel attached to the commission, and the procuratorates have the same;
19. If the supervisory commission's oversight of people's congresses at all levels is personal and not directed against the organs of state power, it should not assign agencies and personnel to this state organ;
20. The draft Ombudsman's law and the Constitution, the Code of Criminal Procedure and other relevant laws are so contradictory to each other that the content structure is too messy and the rules are too general to appear to be very hasty.
21. The personnel of the supervisory organ are suspected of duty crimes and should be independently investigated by the People's Procuratorate; the individuals and institutions shall report to or report to the people's procuratorate on the suspected crimes of the personnel of the supervisory organ. For this purpose, both the criminal law and the criminal procedure law may have to modify;
22. The legislation on supervision should not be too coarse. The draft should pay attention to this requirement and can not leave too many loopholes for the future supervision and explanation.
23. From the draft regulations, the oversight organs have too much power and lack both official power constraints and lack of supervision from the society and citizens. The possible adverse consequences to the state when amending the draft supervision law should be adequately protected .
In today's discussion, some scholars have expressed some views on the following issues, but they have not shown any consensus on the opinions they have expressed with other participating scholars:
1. There is no need to develop a monitoring law;
2. Scope of derogation of public officials' rights;
3. Which of the basic constitutional rights is an individual may decide to give up, what is not;
Under what circumstances should constitution be amended?
5. Whether the content of the supervision law is bound by the international conventions to which China is a party;
6. Should the director of the Central Commission be concurrently chaired by the president of the country;
7. Whether the term of office of the chief commissioner of the Central Commission should be set to a limit;
8. If the term of office of the chief commissioner of the Central Inspection Commission is limited, should it be restricted in the constitution or in the law of supervision;
9. Supervision Law on the publicity of leading cadres should have provisions;
10. Whether local supervision committees at all levels implement double leadership or vertical leadership is good.
Dear Colleagues and Experts, I feel that during the process of attending the meeting and the tea break, we have formed three general opinions and expectations at today's meeting:
1. The draft supervision law far fails to embody the spirit of the constitution and fails to implement the principle of democracy and the rule of law. Many of the provisions clearly contravene the provisions of the Constitution and there are too many constitutional disputes.
2. The relationship between the draft law on supervision and the law on criminal procedural law has not been straightened out in many places;
3. From the timetable and roadmap, the timetable for setting up the supervisory law is too hasty and should be two years or longer.
My concluding remarks say this. Today's seminar such a comprehensive summary is accurate, there is no inappropriate place, please advise. Please tell me if you have any disagreement. This concluding remarks is to be published, explain. Thank you!
No comments:
Post a Comment