What is the latest standard of information disclosure reconsideration?

As we all know, the purpose of information disclosure is to enable ordinary people to supervise the relevant work of government departments through reasonable channels. So, can information disclosure be reconsidered, and what is the latest standard? According to relevant regulations, government information disclosure can be divided into ex officio disclosure and application disclosure. Then let's study the details together. According to the Regulations on the Openness of Government Information, government information disclosure can be divided into ex officio disclosure and application disclosure. For administrative reconsideration that is open ex officio, in the process of hearing reconsideration cases, individual citizens, legal persons or other organizations, especially professional complainants, apply to the reconsideration organ for reconsideration on the grounds that the administrative organ should be open but did not take the initiative to open it. How should this situation be handled? According to the first paragraph of Article 33 of the Regulations on the Openness of Government Information, citizens, legal persons or other organizations may report to the administrative organ at a higher level, the supervisory organ or the competent department of government information disclosure if they think that the administrative organ fails to perform the obligation of government information disclosure according to law. The organ that receives the report shall investigate and handle it. First, the basic meaning of whether information disclosure can be reconsidered; Determination and analysis of public institutions Article 17 of the Regulations on the Openness of Government Information stipulates that government information produced by an administrative organ shall be made public by the administrative organ that produced the government information; Government information obtained by administrative organs from citizens, legal persons or other organizations shall be made public by the administrative organs that keep the government information. Where laws and regulations have other provisions on the authority of government information disclosure, those provisions shall prevail. According to the foregoing provisions, government information is divided into two categories according to sources, namely, government information produced by administrative organs and government information obtained from citizens, legal persons or other organizations kept by administrative organs. In practice, the public information of the production organ is easy to understand, but the public information of the preservation organ has different understandings. We think it is necessary to clarify the following issues: the openness of production institutions is the principle. First of all, for the same piece of government information, in order to be accurate and efficient, its disclosure authority should be unique in principle. On the one hand, the administrative organ that produces information has the most comprehensive and accurate government information, and its disclosure is conducive to the applicant to obtain accurate government information in time. On the other hand, multiple administrative organs have the obligation to disclose the same government information, which will also cause waste of administrative resources. Secondly, the government information disclosure organ should correspond to the confidentiality review organ. Because when judging whether a certain government information can be disclosed, it should be judged whether the government information involves state secrets, commercial secrets and personal privacy, therefore, the distribution of government information disclosure obligations and the determination of government information disclosure subjects also need to consider who is more suitable for confidentiality review of a certain government information. Second, whether information disclosure can be reconsidered. Because the producers of government information have a clearer, more comprehensive and deeper understanding of the content and related background materials of government information, they can more accurately judge whether the disclosure of government information will reveal state secrets, business secrets and personal privacy, and whether it will endanger national security, public safety, economic security and social stability, and then make reasonable decisions. Information sources should be considered when disclosing depository institutions. According to Article 17 of the Regulations on the Openness of Government Information, the information sources of depository institutions are citizens, legal persons or other organizations. From the perspective of administrative legal relationship, they are all administrative counterparts, and the administrative organs are not within their scope. Therefore, the government information kept by the administrative organ and produced by other organs should not be made public by the preservation organ, but should follow the principle of making it public. Exceptions. It should be noted that when information produced by other administrative organs is preserved by administrative organs, which involves the rights and obligations of the parties and serves as the basis for administrative actions, according to judicial practice, the preservation organs also have the obligation of publicity. For example, even if the information obtained by administrative organs as evidence of law enforcement in the process of foreign law enforcement is produced by other administrative organs, law enforcement organs still have the right to dispose of law enforcement evidence. If the law enforcement agency refuses to disclose it on the grounds that it is not produced by the agency, the court will revoke it. Three. Can information disclosure be reconsidered? According to the third paragraph of Article 21 of the Regulations on the Openness of Government Information, if a certain government information does not belong to the disclosure of this administrative organ according to law, it shall inform the applicant. For the public organ that can determine the government information, it shall inform the applicant of the name and contact information of the administrative organ. Then, how to judge whether the administrative organ "can determine the public organ of government information"? We believe that the applicant should be fully informed of the name and contact information of the public institution that can be determined, then the public institution must be accurate and clear. From the perspective of administrative efficiency, only when "theory" and "fact" can determine the public organ can we judge that the administrative organ has the obligation to inform the name and contact information. First of all, if the administrative organ really can't know the disclosure organ of the government information at the first time after retrieving the information applied by the applicant, it needs to conduct appropriate research. If there are clear provisions in laws, regulations, rules or normative documents, it should be considered that administrative organs have the conditions to determine public institutions in theory, but only the business nature and level of public institutions can be determined. Secondly, the administrative organ should combine the specific circumstances of the government information disclosure application, and finally "lock" the disclosure organ in a specific geographical scope, that is, it actually has the conditions to determine the disclosure organ. The administrative organ can make clear the specific direction of government information as far as possible by communicating with the applicant and the subordinate business organs. The purpose of information disclosure is to protect the rights of ordinary people from infringement, realize justice through reasonable channels, and also supervise the work of government departments. Whether information disclosure can be reconsidered has fully demonstrated that the government handles the problems of ordinary people in this way. The public meeting is over. If you have any other questions, please feel free to visit.