The relevant information is as follows:
Judging from the occurrence of this case, for Qi Yuling, the key point is whether the court supports her claim that her right to education has been violated, because this determines the amount of compensation that Qi Yuling can get. According to the way that the courts of first instance and second instance treat the remedy of tort compensation, if the courts don't support it (just like the Intermediate People's Court of Zaozhuang City, Shandong Province), Qi Yuling can only get compensation for the damage of name right, that is, compensation for mental damage; If the court supports it (just like the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province), Qi Yuling can get all the material losses and mental losses that are causally related to the violation of her right to education. However, because the General Principles of the Civil Law does not stipulate the right to education, and this case belongs to a civil litigation case, the Shandong Higher People's Court held that the application of the law was a difficult problem and asked the Supreme People's Court to make an explanation. The Supreme Court then made the above reply, arguing that Xiaoqi Chen and others violated Qi Yuling's right to education in accordance with the Constitution.
Because Qi Yuling's compensation for the violation of her right to education was obtained according to the relevant provisions of the Constitution, it was called the precedent of constitutional judicature.