Grok

Analysis and Commentary on the Chen Jingyuan Case Based on Relevant Provisions of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China on Citizens’ Basic Rights

中文部分 / Chinese Section

引言

《中华人民共和国宪法》（以下简称《宪法》）第二章“公民的基本权利和义务”确立了公民基本权利体系，包括言论自由（第35条）、法律面前平等（第33条）、控告权（第41条）和学术自由（第47条）。 2018年修订强调“国家尊重和保障人权”（第33条），但本案中，昆明司法机关涉嫌刑讯逼供、不公开审理、证据捏造等，严重侵犯陈京元权利，凸显宪法权利的纸面落实困境。本文基于这些规定分析陈京元“寻衅滋事罪”案。

核心思想应用分析

  1. 言论自由（第35条）：《宪法》第35条规定，“中华人民共和国公民有言论、出版、集会、结社、游行、示威的自由。” 陈京元转发Twitter公开帖文（如美国使领馆评论）系言论和信息表达，受此条保护，却被指“散布虚假信息”定罪。此举超出宪法允许的“法律限制”（维护国家安全等），构成对言论自由的制度性压制，制造“寒蝉效应”。

  2. 法律面前平等（第33条）：《宪法》第33条强调，“中华人民共和国公民在法律面前一律平等。” 本案选择性执法（原创者和同转发者未追责，仅针对陈京元），违反平等原则。判决以“高学历=明知”推定罪行，暗示对学者身份的歧视，破坏宪法平等保障。

  3. 控告和检举权（第41条）：《宪法》第41条规定，“中华人民共和国公民对于任何国家机关和国家工作人员，有提出批评和建议的权利；对于任何国家机关和国家工作人员的违法失职行为，有提出控告或者检举的权利。” 陈京元《狱中血书》控告“司法黑帮”，却被狱警拒绝转达，构成对控告权的直接侵犯，阻碍公民监督国家机关。

  4. 学术自由（第47条）：《宪法》第47条保障，“中华人民共和国公民有进行科学研究、文学艺术创作和其他文化活动的自由。” 陈京元作为独立学者，转发帖文系学术收藏和研究，却被定为“寻衅滋事”，违反学术自由，抑制思想多元性。

评论

本案暴露《宪法》基本权利的“双轨制”：纸面庄严，实践扭曲。中国虽修订宪法强调人权，但司法如“口袋罪”滥用，助长选择性执法，削弱宪法权威。 积极而言，此案可推动落实：通过人大监督强化辩护权、证据审查。否则，将放大社会不公，损害“以人为本”的法治承诺。陈京元的抗争不仅是个人维权，更是宪法精神的唤醒。

结论

《宪法》公民基本权利规定为本案提供本土批判框架，呼吁司法从压制转向保障，实现宪法从文本到现实的转化。

English Section

Introduction

Chapter Two of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter “Constitution”), “Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens,” establishes the system of citizens’ basic rights, including freedom of speech (Article 35), equality before the law (Article 33), right to complaint (Article 41), and academic freedom (Article 47). The 2018 amendment emphasizes “the state respects and protects human rights” (Article 33), yet in this case, Kunming judicial authorities allegedly employed torture for confessions, closed trials, and fabricated evidence, severely infringing Chen Jingyuan’s rights and highlighting the gap in constitutional implementation. This analysis applies these provisions to the Chen Jingyuan “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” case.

Application Analysis of Core Ideas

  1. Freedom of Speech (Article 35): Article 35 states, “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.” Chen Jingyuan’s retweeting of public Twitter posts (e.g., U.S. embassy commentary) constitutes speech and information expression, protected under this article, yet was criminalized as “spreading false information.” This exceeds constitutionally permissible restrictions (e.g., national security), amounting to institutional suppression of speech and creating a “chilling effect.”

  2. Equality Before the Law (Article 33): Article 33 emphasizes, “All citizens of the People’s Republic of China are equal before the law.” The case’s selective enforcement (original posters and fellow retweeters unpunished, targeting only Chen) violates equality. The verdict’s presumption of guilt via “high education = knowledge of falsehood” implies discrimination against scholarly status, undermining constitutional equality.

  3. Right to Complaint and Accusation (Article 41): Article 41 provides, “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China have the right to criticize and make suggestions to any state organ or state functionary; and have the right to make complaints or charges against any state organ or state functionary for violation of law or dereliction of duty.” Chen Jingyuan’s Prison Blood Letter accusing a “judicial mafia” was refused transmission by prison guards, directly infringing this right and obstructing citizen oversight of state organs.

  4. Academic Freedom (Article 47): Article 47 safeguards, “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China have the freedom of scientific research, literary and artistic creation and other cultural pursuits.” As an independent scholar, Chen’s retweeting for academic curation and research was deemed “picking quarrels,” violating academic freedom and stifling intellectual pluralism.

Commentary

This case exposes the “dual track” of constitutional rights: solemn on paper, distorted in practice. While China amended the Constitution to emphasize human rights, judicial abuses like “pocket crimes” foster selective enforcement, eroding constitutional authority. Positively, it can drive implementation: through NPC oversight to strengthen defense rights and evidence review. Otherwise, it amplifies social injustice, undermining the “people-centered” rule-of-law promise. Chen’s resistance is not just personal redress but a revival of constitutional spirit.

Conclusion

The Constitution’s provisions on citizens’ basic rights provide a domestic critical framework for the case, urging the judiciary to shift from suppression to protection for true constitutional realization.