The Burden Of Proof Procuratorial Organs In Administrative Public Interest Litigation

Administrative public interest litigation is a new system added when the administrative procedure law was revised in 2017.Although it is stipulated in the administrative procedure law,it is obviously different from the system of administrative litigation system is helpful to clarify the differences between the administrative public interest litigation.The in-depth study of the administrative litigation system and the system,so as to lay the foundation for the discussion on the burden of proof of procuratorial organs.In administrative litigation,the defendant bears a heavy burden of proof because of the difference in the advantages of proof and the private benefit of the purpose of litigation.In administrative public interest litigation,the burden of proof is different from that of administrative public interest litigation because of the commonweal nature of the purpose of litigation.In addition,the procuratorial organs are special in the administrative public interest litigation,so it is of great significance to study the proof responsibility of the procuratorial organs in the administrative public interest litigation.Although there are few cases of administrative public interest litigation caused by administrative illegal act in practice,it is still worthy of further study.In administrative public interest litigation,the practice of pre litigation procedure by the prosecution represents the opening of litigation procedure.In the pre litigation stage,the prosecution should bear the burden of proof of the pre litigation procedure,and the administrative organ has the relationship between the illegal exercise of power or inaction and public welfare damage.Due to the difference between the cases of administrative illegal act and the cases of omission,the litigation procedure bears different matters of proof.In the case of illegal act,one of the defendant’s administrative organs shall bear the burden of proof for the legality of its act,while the prosecution shall not bear the burden of proof for the illegal act of the administrative organ,but shall have the right to present evidence.The prosecution only bears some preliminary burden of proof,such as the defendant is qualified to sue himself;of course,it also needs to prove that the administrative illegal act and thepublic welfare are infringed with causality and the public welfare is infringed.In the cases of omission,the procuratorial organ mainly bears the burden of proof on the following matters: the subject of action has the corresponding qualification;the defendant has the duty requirements to perform such acts but does not perform his duties according to law;the prosecution has already implemented the pre litigation procedure;the state interests or social public interests are still constantly damaged;there is causality between the administrative organ’s failure to perform his duties and the public welfare being infringed 。The administrative organ proves the basis of not performing the duty according to law and some reasons of illegal obstruction.In addition,when meeting the specific situation,the administrative organ shall prove that there is no causality between the implementation or non performance of the illegal act and the damage of public welfare.To distinguish the burden of proof in these two cases,I hope it will be helpful for the future development of the system.