The Study On The Response Period Of The Disclosure Of Government Information

The year 2018 is the 10th anniversary of the implementation of the "Regulation of the People's Republic of China on the Disclosure of Government Information".During the passed 10 years,the practice of the disclosure of government had been fruitful from its infancy to the present.However,we cannot ignore the growing number of judicial disputes over the good prospect of information disclosure.The disputes that often occur in judicial practice can often reflect the defects of rules or systems.Comparative studies of different true cases can help us find the crux of the problem.The first and second part of this paper points out that there are four issues about the China's administrative agencies making response to the deadline of information disclosure applications through studying the Case No.26 of Supreme Court Guiding and its application in judicial practice:How to confirm the date that the administrative agency receives the reply when the administrative counterparts apply for deviations?whether the date of administrative agency automatic reply is effective?what conditions are necessary for the administrative agency to defer reply and what standards is necessary for establishing the deferred-reply condition?what responsibility should the administrative agency take for replying exceed the date limit?The third part of this paper tries to answer these problem:Since the administrative counterpart applies for deviations will increase the time cost of administrative agency.Therefore,the deadline of administrative agency's response should be treated differently responding to the cause of application deviation.Administrative agency announces the time for receiving the application before applying for that is an abstract administrative behavior and it should be effective since it does not violate the provisions of the Regulations.However,the Regulation stipulates additionally that it should make the administrative counterpart reasonably anticipates the reply deadline from the administrative agency.It is invalid that the administrative agency confirms the received date with administrative counterpart after receiving the application since the the Regulation does not authorize this behavior and it will lead to uncertainty of administrative behavior.The establishment of deferred-reply condition should be provided with objective criteria for judgment so as to reduce the possibility of abuse in practice.Obtaining the target information is the purpose of administrative agency applying for the disclosure of information.Therefore,when the judicial organ reviews the overdue reply case from the administrative agency,it should also determine whether the related information should be publicly disclosed.In addition,the fourth part of this paper regulates the application scope of the referee case No.26 in the judicial practice after analyzing the problem at the third part:whether it is from the meaning and structure of the referee's gist of the case,or from the case chosen as the guide,the guidance case No.26 should be only applicable on the situation that the administrative counterparts apply though the government network system.The ruling of the case allows administrative organ to publicly announce the date of receipt of the application on the government's public network system in advance,therefor,the application of this case should exclude the exception of the network system.In ruling of this case,the "reason for deferred processing" and the "reason for overdue reply" were confused,and the internal processing flow of the administrative agency could not be a legal reason to make an overdue defense during the trial.The conclusion part briefly summarizes the full text.