The People's Court of Wuhou District in Chengdu, capital of Sichuan
Province, accepted a case involving right to equality based on
Constitution on January 7, which represented the first of its kind
in China. Zhou Wei, plaintiff attorney and associate professor with
the Law School of Sichuan University, believes with the case
entering legal proceedings, its significance is beyond whether or
not it can win, as both the defendant and plaintiff can greatly
contribute to the Chinese law.
On
December 23, 2001, Jiang Tao and his classmates at the Law
Department of Sichuan University read an advertisement for new
staff of the Chengdu Branch of the People's Bank of China (PBOC).
One requirement reads: "Male applicants shall be above 168 cm in
height and female applicants above 155 cm."
"We felt bad and discriminated against after reading it," said
Zhou, who is 165 cm. They decided to safeguard their constitutional
rightthe right to equalitythrough legal means.
Finally, Jiang individually entered into the lawsuit against the
PBOC Chengdu Branch, as the others were busy either preparing for a
postgraduate course examination or looking for a job.
He
submitted a complaint to the People's Court of Wuhou District,
which says: The administrative action of the defendant (PBOC
Chengdu Branch) in recruiting public servants violated the
provision of Article 33 in the Constitution that "all citizens of
the People"s Republic of China are equal before the law." The
action restricted his qualification for application and infringed
upon his right to equality and political right to be employed as a
public functionary in accordance with the law. The defendant should
assume corresponding legal liabilities. He asked the court to
confirm the administrative action containing "height
discrimination" as illegal and rule that the advertisement with
such content stop to be published.
The plaintiff believes that as 40 percent of men in Sichuan are
shorter than 168 cm, the decision of the PBOC Chengdu Branch Bank
to set a condition on the height of new employees is illegal,
because it lacks authorization of legal stipulations and the job
has no connections with a person's height. The act infringed on the
right to equality of those men who are below 168 cm and women below
155 cm, but qualified in other aspects.
For Jiang, the most important reward from the case is that "it is
the first time that I ever felt the effect of the Constitution.
From now on, I will feel confident in challenging and opposing any
discriminatory action involving height, appearance, gender and
residence registration."
Zhou said that it is bad to see the common occurrence of
infringements on the right to equality in the country. The
establishment of a constitutional procedure system should be
accelerated through many specific cases so that citizens can obtain
legal assistance when their constitutional rights are infringed
upon, said Zhou, adding that this is why he insisted on bringing
the case to court.
On
January 10, the PBOC Chengdu Branch renewed its advertisement, this
time without the height restriction. While expressing his
satisfaction over this, Jiang said he was not going to withdraw the
charge.
The case has become a focus of attention and disputes in law and
academic circles and the media.
Can an Action be Brought Based on the Constitution?
Wang Lei (Associate Professor with the Law School of Peking
University) and Wang Zhenmin (Associate Professor with the Law
School of Tsinghua University): Yes, it can. It is not an ordinary
labor relationship between administrative organs and public
servants, to which the Labor Law is not applicable. Being employed
as a public servant involves the right to work as well as a
political right, because every citizen, who is qualified, has right
to participate in the administration of State affairs. The height
restriction infringes upon the right to equality and further
infringes upon a political rightthe right of citizens to hold
public employment. The principle of rule of law is that
infringement leads to lawsuits. However, there are a great number
of infringements that cannot be brought to a lawsuit. When
administrative procedures fail to provide effective assistance to
citizens, the Constitution has to be invoked to find a legal
basis.
Cai Yaozhong (a lawyer with the Beijing Weiheng Law Firm): No, it
can't. In my opinion, we should not deduce a concept of right to
equality from the provision of Article 33 in the Constitution,
which stipulates: "All citizens of the People's Republic of China
are equal before the law." That all citizens are equal before the
law should only be interpreted as citizens being equal in terms of
applicable laws or in enjoying legal protection and performing
legal obligations. Height restrictions infringe on the right to
work but not the right to equality. In my view, the plaintiff may
bring the action based on the right to work.
Mo
Jihong (a researcher with the Institute of Law Science of the
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences): It should be dealt with
prudently. The current system has failed to properly deal with the
restrictive relationship between rights as well as laws.
Administrative procedures safeguard the authority of legislative
organs, while constitutional procedures likely lead to judicial
organs challenging the authority of legislative bodies. If final
adjudications on cases involving constitutional procedures are made
at local court and none of such cases needs to be brought to the
Supreme People's Court, it would mean that the local court could
challenge the State legislative bodies.
Therefore, judicial organs should respect the authority of
legislative bodies during the application of law. The Constitution
could be employed only under two circumstances. One is inaction of
legislative bodies; for instance, legislative bodies fail to
interpret the principles in the Constitution into concrete laws and
regulations. The other is the occurrence of legislative crisis; for
instance, in case legislative bodies deny that everyone is equal
before the law, judicial organs would have to skip laws and
regulations and apply the Constitution.
Equality: A Principle or a Right?
Fei Anling (Professor with the China University of Political
Science and Law): Equality is not an independent right but a
fundamental principle. Nowadays, there is a tendency to regard
everything as a right. As a matter of fact, it generalizes rights,
which, I'm afraid, will be depreciated. In my opinion, the height
restriction infringes upon the right of equal employment by way of
height discrimination. In fact, the right of equal employment means
the right of natural persons to equally participate in competition
and subsequently bring their working ability into play. I deem such
a right to be a private one.
Wang Zhenmin: Equality is a type of right. In the current legal
system, more demands of citizens have been compressed into the
scope of personal and property rights. For many years, court staff
thought personal and property rights are the only rights of
citizens. Equality can be divided into political equality and
social equality. In China, political equality, such as the right to
vote and stand for election, has been well guaranteed while social
equality is far from being developed. Social practices are full of
discriminatory regulations. For example, male workers are entitled
to housing allocation, while women workers are not; there are
differences between urban and rural residents; and college
admission marks vary in different regions. These social phenomena
contribute to inadequate social equality, which reflect that
protection of social equality is far from adequate in terms of
legislation.
Jiao Hongchang (Associate Professor with the Law Department of the
China University of Political Science and Law): Equality becoming a
legal right is an outcome of the practice of the rule of law.
Initially, equality was just a legal concept. Along with the social
development, it has been regarded as a legal principle and further
become an independent legal right. Only as a legal right can
equality obtain judicial assistance. Everybody being equal before
the law means the equality not only in terms of practical laws, but
also in terms of legislation.
How to Realize Legal Assistance?
Mo
Jihong: This case reflects deficiencies existing in the current
legal system. Firstly, the system of legal assistance is
incomplete; the system of right to action has been restricted to a
great extent. Lots of rights could be offered, however, assistance
could not be guaranteed when needed. Secondly, legal assistance
mechanisms are not associated with each other, leaving many blank
spaces. Thirdly, legal assistance itself is not scientific enough,
and procedures are irrational. The right to action of interested
parties cannot be guaranteed through the system. In a word, the
relationship between the State power and citizens' rights has not
been dealt with within a legal framework.
Dr. Chen Xinxin (with the Institute of Law Science of the Chinese
Academy of Social Sciences): A court cannot refuse to put a case on
file on the pretext that there are no legal provisions. Parties
concerned have the right to take an action with regard to some
cases. Justice is the last channel for the guarantee of human
rights. The existence of blank spaces means the failure of a
judicial system. How to guarantee the rights of interested parties
is the first question to be considered and answered by the
court.
(
Beijing Review February 26, 2002)