In recent years, a hot topic in judicial reform has been the implementation of the “Review and Approval System.” Following the last round of judicial reforms, courts have moved towards the principle of “letting the adjudicator decide and holding the adjudicator accountable,” with independent adjudication by quota judges becoming the mainstream approach. However, the emergence of the “Review and Approval System” seems to be a step backward. After judges independently adjudicate cases, their rulings still need to be reviewed and approved by the presiding judge or court president before being issued, reminiscent of the previous “hierarchical approval” system.
What is the Review and Approval System?
The full name of the Review and Approval System should be the “Court President and Presiding Judge Review and Approval System.” It generally refers to a system within the court system where the court president or presiding judge reviews and verifies specific cases or legal documents. This system is typically used to strengthen the supervision and management of judicial work, ensuring the fairness, legality, and standardization of case adjudication.
Review of Key Cases: For major, complex, or socially impactful cases, the court president or presiding judge personally reviews case materials, judgments, etc., to ensure the quality of case adjudication.
Verification of Legal Documents: The system involves reviewing legal documents issued by the court (such as judgments, rulings, and mediation agreements) to ensure accuracy, proper formatting, and correct application of the law.
Procedural Oversight: It checks the legality of trial procedures to ensure that the adjudication process complies with legal provisions and avoids procedural flaws.
Quality Control: Through the Review and Approval System, the court president or presiding judge can identify and correct potential issues in case adjudication, thereby improving the overall quality of judicial work.
What Are the Drawbacks of the Review and Approval System?
While the “Court President and Presiding Judge Review and Approval System” can enhance the quality and standardization of judicial work to some extent, it also has potential drawbacks. Critics in the academic community have pointed out issues related to judicial independence, efficiency, and quality, including the following:
Administrative Interference in Judicial Matters: As administrative leaders, court presidents and presiding judges may exert undue influence on case adjudication during the review process, undermining judicial independence. Judges may also tend to cater to the opinions of their superiors rather than making decisions based solely on the law and facts, fearing the review process.
Increased Workload: Court presidents and presiding judges need to review and verify a large number of cases or legal documents, which may lead to an excessive workload, affecting the efficiency of other administrative tasks. Judges may also spend more time revising and perfecting legal documents due to concerns about the review process, prolonging the case adjudication cycle.
Reduced Efficiency: The implementation of the Review and Approval System may complicate and lengthen the case adjudication process, impacting judicial efficiency. If the review frequency or scope is too broad, it could lead to case backlogs, affecting the overall progress of court work.
Dispersed Responsibility: The system may lead to a diffusion of responsibility, with unclear boundaries between the responsibilities of judges and court presidents/presiding judges. This could result in mutual blame-shifting when issues arise. Judges might relax their self-imposed standards for case quality, relying on the review by their superiors.
Formalism Tendency: In some cases, the Review and Approval System may become a mere formality, with court presidents or presiding judges simply signing off on documents without conducting substantive reviews. This superficial review may fail to identify and address real issues, adding unnecessary procedural burdens.
Impact on Judicial Independence: Judges may experience psychological pressure when adjudicating cases, fearing the review process, which could affect their independent judgment and decision-making. Over-reliance on the review by superiors may weaken judges’ professional competence and sense of responsibility.
What is the Necessity of the Review and Approval System?
Despite its apparent drawbacks, the idea of “letting the adjudicator decide and holding the adjudicator accountable” is somewhat idealistic in practice and can easily lead to problems, casting doubt on overall judicial fairness.
Limitations of Judges’ Cognition: As I have mentioned in previous articles, judges’ personal cognitive limitations can lead to errors in adjudication due to insufficient understanding. Such cognitive gaps often require extensive work experience to mitigate. Moreover, some judges, having long been in high-paying adjudication roles, may become disconnected from the everyday lives of ordinary citizens, leading to biases that could affect the public’s perception of fairness and justice.
Consistency in Judicial Decisions: After judges adjudicate cases independently, it is easy to encounter situations where similar cases receive different judgments. Even if the system requires judges to search for similar rulings during case handling, the execution of this system is imperfect. The broad definition of “similar cases” often results in multiple different rulings, making it difficult to establish binding references. The most severe issue is when different judges in the same court render vastly different judgments for similar cases, which can be shocking to the public. For example, in a batch of cases I handled a few years ago involving residents suing a developer for breach of contract, the outcomes varied significantly depending on which judge handled the case.
Uniformity of Judicial Responsibility: In the debate over the Review and Approval System, the court system generally supports it. Many court presidents and presiding judges believe that during the previous judicial reforms, there was a widespread reluctance to manage, unwillingness to manage, and inability to manage among court leaders. Apart from formalistic approvals like extending trial deadlines, it was difficult for leaders to inquire about the adjudication of cases by quota judges. However, when issues arose, the leaders were still held accountable. According to the constitution, courts in China exercise judicial power independently as a whole, meaning that court leaders bear political responsibility for any judgments made by the court. From the perspective of ordinary judges, this system is also favorable, as the pressure of lifelong accountability for independent adjudication makes them cautious. Having court leaders review their work and share the responsibility is naturally a welcome relief.
Most importantly, in recent years, several high-profile cases of judges being targeted or societal backlash due to perceived unfair judgments have drawn widespread attention. Some of these cases have exposed flaws in independent adjudication, accelerating the adoption of the Review and Approval System.
Of course, this is not to say that the Review and Approval System will necessarily solve these problems. On the contrary, it has its own drawbacks. However, at its core, judicial reform has always been about the division of responsibility, and the Review and Approval System aligns more closely with actual accountability. After all, a wrongful judgment may result in a reprimand for the judge, but if it triggers a chain reaction, it could lead to the dismissal of local party and government leaders, as well as court presidents and presiding judges. In such cases, without a Review and Approval System, the leaders bearing primary responsibility would indeed be unfairly treated.
Does the Procuratorate Also Implement the Review and Approval System?
The procuratorate has always implemented the “Review and Approval System,” as it operates under a procurator-general responsibility system, where the procurator-general has the final decision-making authority over cases. However, during the last round of judicial reforms, quota prosecutors somewhat followed the court’s approach to independent case handling. Since the courts proposed the “Review and Approval System” in recent years, the procuratorate has further emphasized hierarchical responsibility in case handling, requiring the strengthening of supervision and management duties by the procuratorial committee, procurator-general, and heads of business departments. It has also improved the integrated and comprehensive performance mechanisms to prevent wrongful cases by reinforcing self-management within business departments, specialized management by case management departments, and collaborative management by relevant departments. In essence, this means further strengthening the supervision and management of the case handling process, with a greater focus on outcome-oriented results.