Example 1: Liu v. academic degree evaluation committee, Peking University.

Liu is a doctoral student in Peking University and has passed the comprehensive examination for doctoral students. The tutor thinks that his doctoral thesis has reached the doctoral level and recommends it; According to peer experts' evaluation, his thesis has also reached the doctoral level and can be defended; After defense, the thesis defense Committee thinks that its thesis has reached the level of doctoral degree and recommends that it be awarded a doctoral degree; After voting, the academic degree evaluation committee branch of the Department considered that its thesis had reached the level of doctoral degree, and also suggested that it be awarded a doctoral degree; Peking University academic degree evaluation committee voted that his thesis did not reach the level of doctoral degree and decided not to grant it. On this basis, according to this decision, Peking University made a decision not to issue a diploma, but a certificate of completion. This led to a lawsuit.

There are many legal issues worthy of study in this case, but a key issue argued by the defendant in the lawsuit is that Peking University is a comprehensive university, and academic degree evaluation committee, Peking University is an institution composed of multidisciplinary experts, and only one of these experts belongs to Liu's subject, that is, only this person can read Liu's papers. In other word, that decision not to award Dr. Liu a degree was made by a group of "laymen". The the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) 1980 "Regulations on Academic Degrees in People's Republic of China (PRC)" determines the degree awarding system, in which the thesis defense committee puts forward a proposal on whether to award the degree, and academic degree evaluation committee decides whether to approve it. Undoubtedly, the practice of Peking University conforms to the provisions of the Academic Degrees Regulations. However, Liu and his agents believe that the degree awarding system stipulated in the Academic Degrees Regulations is unreasonable and infringes on the citizens' right to education protected by the Constitution. Then, what is the basis for judging whether the provisions of the Academic Degrees Ordinance are reasonable? Of course, it can only be superior to its constitution in status and effectiveness. Because the courts in our country have no right to review the constitutionality of laws according to the Constitution, that is to say, the courts have no right to review the constitutionality, so although the parties had a heated debate on this issue in the lawsuit, the courts eventually refused to admit it.

Q: When making laws according to the Constitution, the litigants think that the law applicable to the case violates the provisions, principles and spirit of the Constitution, and the court has no right to review the law according to the Constitution. How can the constitutional rights of the parties get relief?

Example 2: Wang Chunli et al. v election dispute case of Xicheng District Election Committee.

Wang Chunli and other 42 people are laid-off workers in national hotel, Beijing. During their laid-off, it coincided with the election of deputies to the People's Congress in Xicheng District, Beijing. 42 people, including Wang Chunli, were included in the electoral list of national hotel and posted on the list, but they were not issued with voter cards and were not told to participate in the election, resulting in 42 people, including Wang Chunli, failing to participate in the election and exercise their right to vote. 42 people, including Wang Chunli, filed a lawsuit in the Xicheng District Court, demanding that the election committee's actions were illegal and demanding economic compensation. The Xicheng District Court of Beijing ruled that it was inadmissible because there was no legal basis; The plaintiff refused to accept the judgment and appealed to the Intermediate Court, which rejected the appellant's appeal. (Note: China's electoral law and civil procedure law only stipulate one type of election dispute, that is, voter list cases. After the publication of the voters' list, if anyone thinks that there is something wrong with the voters' list, or that it should be included in the voters' list but not included, or that it should not be included in the voters' list, they can appeal to the Election Committee, which will make a decision on the appeal. If he refuses to accept the decision, the parties may bring a lawsuit to the people's court, that is, the voter list case, and the people's court will make a judgment before the election is over, and the trial is final. All the laws in our country have no provisions on the litigation of other election disputes. )

Q: Under the circumstance that the civil rights stipulated in the Constitution are not specified by law, citizens think that their constitutional rights have been violated and they cannot get relief through legal proceedings. (Note: China's People's Court Organization Law, Administrative Procedure Law, Civil Procedure Law and Criminal Procedure Law clearly stipulate that the People's Court shall exercise judicial power independently according to law. Judging from the fact that China's Constitution stipulates that the National People's Congress and the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) have the power of constitutional supervision, the people's courts do not have the power of constitutional supervision, that is, the people's courts cannot conduct unconstitutional review and judgment according to the Constitution. ) How should it be freed? If we can't get relief through ordinary legal procedures, and there is no corresponding constitutional litigation or other means to get relief, then the civil rights recognized by the Constitution will become castles in the air and the moon in the water.

There are also some such cases or incidents, such as boys and girls living together and getting pregnant while studying, and the university they attended dismissed them according to university regulations. Do school regulations violate the principles or spirit of the Constitution? The husband and wife watch porn at home, and the police station enters the house to take it away according to the current relevant regulations. Does the current law violate the principles or spirit of the Constitution? Wait a minute.

The author predicts that in the next few years, there will be a large number of cases or events involving constitutional issues. The reason lies in: (1) the conflict between public power and private rights. Under the planned economy system, public power is superior to private power, and private power is in a position of obedience to public power or even absolute obedience. After more than 20 years of reform and opening up, people's ideas and consciousness have changed greatly, and the concept that private rights are absolutely subordinate to public power has gradually been abandoned. The boundary between private rights and public rights is determined by the interests of the Constitution and laws on specific issues. At the same time, the basic purpose of the existence and function of public power is also to focus on realizing private rights bigger and better. (2) Determined by the concept of the superior position of public power, the exercise of public power does not follow the principle of "limited government", but is based on the principle of "easy management", which conflicts with the general requirements of the exercise of modern public power. The most prominent performance is that there are some arbitrary requirements or some arbitrary requirements and regulations in the exercise of public power. These requirements and regulations lack legitimacy and fairness. (3) Some requirements and regulations in the exercise of public power are applicable to the planned economy system, but not to the market economy system. In other words, it is in conflict and contradiction with the market economy system. (Note: For example, when the government formulates some regulations and requirements, it does not consider their necessity or legality, but proceeds from administrative interests. Therefore, some enterprises have followed suit and set unreasonable restrictive conditions in recruitment, such as age, education, height, household registration, gender and so on. When designing forms, state organs, enterprises and institutions never consider why the parties are required to fill in these contents and whether they have the right to ask the parties to fill in these contents. )