Study On The Present Situation Of Procuratorial Organs Bringing Evidence Of Administrative Public Interest Litigation

In the 2017 amendment of the Administrative Litigation Law,the procuratorial organ filed an administrative public interest litigation to further stipulate at the institutional level,and added a guarantee for the procuratorial organ to file an administrative public interest litigation.The evidence is an important part of the litigation,but the current design of the administrative public interest litigation system is not comprehensive,resulting in no consistency in the process of proof of judicial practice.What is the difference in the evidence in the administrative public interest litigation,how to set up a series of questions such as the distribution of the burden of proof,and further study from the system,theory and practice.At present,the research in the theoretical circle is not well integrated with the reality,and it is limited to the study of the burden of proof,and more on the research of “inversion of burden of proof” or “who advocates and who gives evidence”.This article focuses on the rules of burden of proof while focusing more on the design and practice of the system.Through this approach,more realistic and objective conclusions can be obtained.In the system,the construction of the evidence for administrative public interest litigation can be seen that only the relevant content of the prosecution’s evidence is partially stipulated,and the evidence of the administrative organ and the third party isnot mentioned;and the highest people’s procuratorate is provided for the prosecution’s evidence.The attitude of the Supreme People’s Court is also different;administrative public interest litigation has its particularity compared to the evidence in civil public interest litigation and general administrative litigation.The characteristics of case proof in judicial practice include: the evidence provided by the procuratorial organs is relatively high and varied,although in some cases the administrative organs have also produced a lot of evidence,but it is often difficult to achieve the purpose of the proof,the object of the proof is not clear,some of the courts did not have a clear focus of controversy,which made the two sides not able to fight well in the process of proof.After a basic understanding of the case and the evidence,the procuratorial organs,administrative agencies,and third parties conducted a more detailed analysis of the evidence.It can be found that there are deviations in the evidence in the norm and practice,the unclear proof of the damaged public interest,the different contents of the certificate that meet the statutory conditions,the inconsistency of the administrative authority on the content of the certificate,and the lack of evidence in the administrative agency.The court is in the evidence.The attitudes adopted in the adoption,the differences between the evidence certifications and the important basis of the judgment and the evidence of the third party.Based on the above situation,the issue of proof in administrative public interest litigation should be improved from the following aspects: First,the improvement of the content of the certificate,including the administrative inaction,should be borne by the administrative organ,and the proof of the damaged public interest should be Pay attention to the improvement of the identification of damaged interests at the same time;the second is to improve the proof of different subjects.The most important thing for the procuratorial organs is to improve the right to investigate and collect evidence.The administrative organs need to further improve the content of the evidence through judicial interpretation or case guidance.And the evidence for the third party should be further determined in the administrative public interest litigation.