Law to promote gov't transparency
0 
Government bodies failing to publicize information legally required to be made public may face lawsuits, according to a draft regulation issued by the Supreme People's Court (SPC) yesterday.
Any individual citizen, legal representative or organization can file a lawsuit if they object to the government practice of not publicizing information, said the draft.
The draft regulation was published on the website www.chinacourt.org to seek public advice and suggestions.
The regulation is believed to be a major move to help improve transparency of government work in the country.
Based on the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and China Administrative Procedural Law, the new regulations are aimed at standardizing trials of cases about government information transparency.
According to the SPC, the public has been making requests for government information since the code took effect on May 1, 2008. It stipulates that government departments should publicize information like budgets, social welfare projects, and economic statistics, and also gives people the right to ask for information that should be public.
Although the code enables the public to sue government departments, problems have been emerging in the public-access trials about the implementation of the code.
For example, "if you want to sue a government department for not providing the information, the court might simply refuse to accept the case," said Ren Jianming, a public administration professor of Tsinghua University.
Legal experts said the SPC regulation will help "standardize and guide trials".
The regulation came as a signal from judicial department officials that they will actively address such cases, resulting from the public's need for wider access to government information, Ren said.
According to the regulation, if government department officials refuse to provide information because they think it is private or a "national or business secret", they have to provide evidence that the material is confidential.
Comments