Feng Zhenghu: Sixth Review of China’s Petition System — A Silent Petition Office, a Paralyzed Avenue of Relief

In the context of a modern rule-of-law society， we often say “there are laws to rely on， and laws must be followed”。 When a citizen’s lawful property has been seized for years、 and both administrative and judicial avenues of relief face dead ends， he places his final hope in the “hierarchical supervision” and “petition system” granted by law。 Yet after the letter conveying this hope was sent， what arrived was a soundless “silence beyond the statutory deadline”。

This is not merely the experience of an ordinary citizen seeking to defend his rights， it is also a test of whether local administrative organs are truly practicing “administration according to law”。

I、 What was sent was not merely a letter， but the final hope for relief

The matter began with a registered letter sent to the Petition Office of the Shanghai Municipal Party Committee and Municipal Government （hereinafter“ the Shanghai Petition Office”）。

On June 11， 2026， the Shanghai Petition Office signed for a substantial delivery。 It contained an 88-page letter reporting the matter along with a complete set of evidentiary materials。 The letter was written by Feng Zhenghu， who requested that the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government， pursuant to Article 35 of the newly revised 《Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People’s Republic of China》， perform its hierarchical supervision duties and order the Shanghai Municipal Justice Bureau， which had previously “failed to act on an administrative reconsideration application”， to correct its illegal conduct within a specified time limit; if the Justice Bureau still failed to make corrections， he requested that the municipal government directly accept his administrative reconsideration application and hold the relevant responsible persons accountable。

Behind this letter lies the grim reality that a citizen’s lawful property has been illegally seized by public security organs for more than 16 years， while avenues of relief have nearly ground to a halt。 After exhausting other conventional avenues of relief， this letter was Feng Zhenghu’s final appeal to the hierarchical supervision authority。

Yet nearly one month has passed since the letter was signed for， and the Shanghai Petition Office has remained in a puzzling silence。

II、 The legal red line crossed by the “silence beyond the deadline”

What has been quietly crossed amid this silence are the statutory deadlines and legal duties expressly stipulated by law。

Under Article 23 of the 《Regulations on Petition Work》， which took effect on May 1， 2022， after organs at all levels receive a petition matter， they should respond on the spot if they are able to do so; if they cannot respond on the spot， they must notify the petitioner in writing within 15 days of receiving the petition matter。

At the same time， under Articles 2、 3 and 5 of the 《National Public Complaints and Proposals Administration Measures on Further Regulating the Registration of Public Visits》， petition departments bear not only the obligation to “provide written notification within 15 days”， but also the “obligation to track and supervise petition matters throughout the entire process”。

Let us review the simple but clear timeline of this incident：

● June 11， 2026： The Shanghai Petition Office signed for the letter reporting the matter。

● June 26， 2026： The statutory 15-day “written notification deadline” expired。

● As of July 10， 2026 （the date the demand letter was issued）： More than 29 days had passed since receipt， and the failure to respond after the deadline had lasted 14 days。

During this long period， no written notification was delivered， there was no communication by telephone or text message， and there was not even notification of whether the petition matter had been accepted、 rejected、 or transferred to another organ。 This unquestionably constitutes a typical instance of “failing to accept a matter that should be accepted and failing to provide notification that should be provided”—an administrative failure to act。

III、 Procedural justice is the soul of the rule of law

“Justice must not only be done， but must also be seen to be done。” This ancient legal maxim applies equally to petition procedures。

The petition system is the specific institutional guarantee of the “right to appeal、 accuse and report” granted to citizens by Article 41 of China’s Constitution， and is a bridge connecting the Party and the government with the people。 The “written notification within 15 days” is the most basic yet most crucial checkpoint in the petition process。

The existence of written notification enables petitioners to know clearly whether their requests have been accepted、 who will handle them、 and under what procedures they will be handled。 Once this procedure is absent， petitioners are left in a state of anxiety and uncertainty caused by information asymmetry， unable not only to supplement materials in a timely manner， but also to anticipate the direction of their next legal remedy。

When administrative organs selectively turn a blind eye to statutory procedural deadlines， they are not merely wearing down an individual’s patience; they are also eroding the public’s trust in the petition system and even in a government governed by the rule of law。

IV、 A final exercise of restraint and a good-faith demand for action

Faced with the situation of “no response after the deadline”， Feng Zhenghu did not immediately choose confrontation; instead， on July 10， 2026， he delivered a written 《Demand Letter》 to the Shanghai Petition Office。

This was a demand for action imbued with legal reasoning、 clear logic、 extremely restrained wording and good faith。 In the demand letter， he reiterated his reasonable requests and reminded the other party in good faith：

1. If the matter falls within your responsibilities： please correct the overdue conduct in accordance with the law， immediately issue a written notification， and substantively conclude the matter within the statutory time limit。

2. If the matter does not fall within your responsibilities： please also issue written notification in accordance with the law， explain the reasons for rejecting it， and provide guidance and an explanation of the correct avenue for handling it。

This 《Demand Letter》 was the final communication effort before initiating more serious legal proceedings。 As Feng Zhenghu said in the letter， he sincerely hoped that the delay was due only to an administrative oversight or poor communication， and that the matter could be properly resolved without initiating adversarial remedial proceedings。 His request had been simple and modest from beginning to end—merely a lawful and responsible written response， so that the interrupted process of legal relief could begin moving again。

V、 If the silence continues， what should the next step under the rule of law be？

If this 《Demand Letter》—marked by considerable restraint and rationality—still fails to awaken the administrative organ to perform its duties according to law， then under current law， the rights defender will have no choice but to deploy more forceful legal tools：

●  Report the matter to a higher authority and seek accountability： pursuant to Article 38 of the 《Regulations on Petition Work》， request that the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government and the Joint Conference on Petition Work order corrections and initiate accountability procedures。

●  File a complaint with the National Public Complaints and Proposals Administration： pursuant to the relevant regulations， submit recommendations to the National Public Complaints and Proposals Administration for improving the work and pursuing accountability over the Shanghai Petition Office’s failure to issue notification documents in a standardized manner as required by law， resulting in the “escalation of the petition”。

●  Bring an administrative lawsuit： pursuant to Item 6 of Article 12 of the 《Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China》， file suit with a people’s court accusing the petition department of “failing to perform its statutory duties”。 “Place power in the cage of institutions。” This “cage” consists of specific statutory time limits、 standardized written notifications and the strict performance of statutory duties on each occasion。

We expect the Shanghai Petition Office to uphold the basic purpose of a “government governed by the rule of law and a service-oriented government”， respond actively to this good-faith demand， and use a lawful、 standardized and transparent written notification to turn the green light back on for the citizen’s avenue of relief stalled halfway through the procedure。 After all， the dignity of the rule of law is often embodied in the small matter of providing written notification within these 15 days。

July 24， 2026