SuperAPI AI Directory
Partner中文AI newsFavorites
Skillsadministrative-value-judgment

administrative-value-judgment

General & other

View repository

Updated 10-16 01:35

About this skill

This Skill is used by administrative organs to handle value conflicts and discretionary choices in specific case facts. It does not replace formal administrative decisions and only outputs internal analytical value judgments and discretionary recommendations.

Capabilities

  • Extract the discretionary issues, affected entities, main interests, and value conflicts in the case facts.
  • Review item by item according to legality, reasonableness, the principle of proportionality, the principle of equality, procedural fairness, good faith, and the protection of reliance.
  • Distinguish public interest, individual rights and interests, institutional value, and instrumental value.
  • Identify the risk that administrative convenience, performance review pressure, and management efficiency are misrepresented as public interest.
  • Compare the interest benefits and rights and interests harm of different handling options.
  • Output the tendentious discretionary conclusion, reasons, least harmful measures, and matters requiring verification.

How to Use

Step 1: Case fact preprocessing

Objective:
Extract the basic information needed for subsequent review.

Operations:

  1. Extract the core discretionary issues.
  2. Identify affected entities.
  3. List the main interests and values.
  4. Preliminarily locate the value conflicts.

Output:

  • Core discretionary issues:
  • Affected entities:
  • Main interests/values:
  • Preliminary value conflicts:

Step 2: Review of the principle of legality

Objective:
Determine whether the value judgment breaks through the bottom line of administration according to law.

Rules:

  1. Options that are obviously illegal, ultra vires, or without basis must not enter interest balancing.

  2. Public interest, policy objectives, and administrative efficiency must not be used to justify illegal administration.

  3. When information on legality is insufficient, mark "not stated in the case facts".

Output:

  • Whether there is an obvious risk of illegality, ultra vires, or lack of basis:
  • Whether it can enter subsequent interest balancing:
  • Explanation:

Step 3: Review of the principle of reasonableness

Objective:
Determine whether the handling direction is fair, appropriate, and consistent with the specific case context.

Rules:

  1. Identify mechanical enforcement and one-size-fits-all handling.

  2. Identify obvious unfairness.

  3. Identify disregard for the special circumstances of the individual case.

  4. Identify the problem of mistakenly treating administrative convenience and performance review pressure as public interest.

Output:

  • Whether there is obvious unreasonableness:
  • Value judgments requiring correction:
  • Explanation:

Step 4: Review of the principle of proportionality

Objective:
Determine whether the administrative objective and the harm to rights and interests are proportionate.

Rules:

  1. Suitability: Whether the measure helps achieve the administrative purpose.

  2. Necessity: Whether there is an alternative that causes less harm and is equally effective.

  3. Balancing: Whether the gain in public interest is greater than the harm to individual rights and interests.

Output:

  • Suitability:
  • Necessity:
  • Balancing:
  • Conclusion on the principle of proportionality:

Step 5: Review of the principle of equality

Objective:
Determine whether like cases are treated alike and different situations are handled with reasonable distinctions.

Rules:

  1. Similar cases should be treated alike.

  2. Different situations may be handled with reasonable distinctions.

  3. Prevent selective enforcement.

  4. Reasonable accommodation may be given to vulnerable groups and special groups.

Output:

  • Whether there is a risk of unequal or selective treatment:
  • Whether differentiated treatment is needed:
  • Explanation:

Step 6: Review of the principle of procedural due process

Objective:
Determine whether procedural values have been fully considered.

Rules:

  1. Whether reasons need to be given.

  2. Whether statements and defenses need to be heard.

  3. Whether rectification, supplementation, a hearing, demonstration, disclosure, or risk assessment is needed.

  4. When significant rights and interests are affected, the intensity of procedural safeguards should be increased.

Output:

  • Procedural values that need to be safeguarded:
  • Whether supplementary procedures are needed:
  • Explanation:

Step 7: Review of the principles of good faith and protection of legitimate expectations

Objective:
Determine whether the administrative organ should protect the counterpart's legitimate expectations.

Rules:

  1. Whether there is an administrative license, commitment, guidance, confirmation, or long-term stable practice.

  2. Whether the counterpart formed reasonable expectations based on that act.

  3. Whether the counterpart has already invested costs or formed stable interests.

  4. Whether a transition period, rectification period, compensation, statement of reasons, or buffer arrangement is needed.

Output:

  • Whether legitimate expectations exist:
  • Whether legitimate interests may be harmed:
  • Whether buffering or remedy is needed:
  • Explanation:

Step 8: Balancing of interests

Objective:
Compare the value gains and rights harms of different handling directions.

Rules:

  1. The public interest must be concretized.

  2. Administrative efficiency, management convenience, and assessment pressure are usually only instrumental values.

  3. Foundational values usually take priority over instrumental values.

  4. Individual rights and interests may yield according to law, but must not be sacrificed without explanation.

  5. When the administrative purpose can be achieved with a plan causing less harm, a heavier plan should not be chosen.

  6. Values that have yielded should retain minimum protection.

Output:

  • Interests that should be given priority protection:
  • Interests that may appropriately yield:
  • Bottom lines that must not be breached:
  • Comparison of interest gains and losses among the plans:

Step 9: Discretionary conclusion

Objective:
Form a preferred discretionary opinion.

The conclusion must include:

  1. Recommended handling direction.

  2. Core reasons.

  3. Least harmful or buffering measures.

  4. Plans that should not be adopted and the reasons.

  5. Matters requiring further verification.

Output:

  • Preferred conclusion:
  • Reasons:
  • Least harmful or buffering measures:
  • Plans that should not be adopted:
  • Matters requiring further verification:

Input Format

The input is mainly a section of administrative case facts.

【Case Facts】 When handling a certain matter, an administrative agency faces different handling options. The case facts include the factual background, the subjects involved, the measures to be taken, and the public interests and individual rights that may be affected.

Output Format

The final output is fixed as:

# 行政机关价值判断与裁量分析

## 一、案情预处理
- 核心裁量问题：
- 受影响主体：
- 主要利益/价值：
- 初步价值冲突：

## 二、合法性原则审查
- 是否存在明显违法、越权或无依据风险：
- 是否可进入后续利益衡量：
- 说明：

## 三、合理性原则审查
- 是否存在明显不合理：
- 需要修正的价值判断：
- 说明：

## 四、比例原则审查
- 适当性：
- 必要性：
- 均衡性：
- 比例原则结论：

## 五、平等原则审查
- 是否存在不平等或选择性处理风险：
- 是否需要差别化处理：
- 说明：

## 六、程序正当原则审查
- 需要保障的程序价值：
- 是否需要补充程序：
- 说明：

## 七、诚信与信赖保护原则审查
- 是否存在合理信赖：
- 是否可能损害信赖利益：
- 是否需要缓冲或补救：
- 说明：

## 八、利益衡量
- 应优先保护的利益：
- 可以适度让位的利益：
- 不得突破的底线：
- 各方案利益得失比较：

## 九、裁量结论
- 倾向性结论：
- 理由：
- 最小损害或缓冲措施：
- 不宜采取的方案：
- 需进一步核实事项：

Example Usage

Example Request

请根据以下案情进行行政机关价值判断与裁量分析：

某市市场监管部门在食品安全专项整治中，发现一家社区小餐饮店后厨卫生不达标、部分食材储存不规范。该店位于老旧社区，主要服务周边老人和学生。经营者称近期因装修和员工流动导致管理不到位，愿意立即整改。

执法人员有两种意见：
方案一：责令停业整顿，以维护食品安全和专项整治效果。
方案二：责令限期整改，并加强后续检查，以兼顾社区居民生活便利和小微经营者生计。

Expected Output

# 行政机关价值判断与裁量分析

## 一、案情预处理
- 核心裁量问题：应直接停业整顿，还是先限期整改并加强后续检查。
- 受影响主体：市场监管部门、餐饮店经营者、周边老人和学生、社区居民、食品安全监管公众。
- 主要利益/价值：
  - 公共利益：食品安全、公共卫生、市场监管秩序；
  - 个体权益：经营自由、生计利益；
  - 社会利益：社区居民生活便利；
  - 制度价值：专项整治效果、执法公信力；
  - 工具价值：行政效率、统一执法尺度。
- 初步价值冲突：食品安全监管效果 vs 小微经营者生计与社区居民便利。

## 二、合法性原则审查
- 是否存在明显违法、越权或无依据风险：案情未显示。
- 是否可进入后续利益衡量：可以。
- 说明：行政机关基于食品安全问题介入监管具有正当基础，但案情未说明违法程度是否达到必须停业整顿的程度。

## 三、合理性原则审查
- 是否存在明显不合理：直接停业整顿可能存在处理偏重风险。
- 需要修正的价值判断：不能仅因专项整治就当然选择最严措施。
- 说明：经营者愿意整改，且该店服务老旧社区居民，应考虑个案情况。

## 四、比例原则审查
- 适当性：停业整顿和限期整改均有助于食品安全监管。
- 必要性：若限期整改加复查足以消除隐患，则停业整顿不是损害最小方案。
- 均衡性：直接停业对经营者生计和社区便利影响较大。
- 比例原则结论：方案二更符合必要性和均衡性。

## 五、平等原则审查
- 是否存在不平等或选择性处理风险：案情未说明。
- 是否需要差别化处理：需要根据违法严重程度、整改态度、服务社区功能进行精细化处理。
- 说明：同类违法应同等处理，但存在特殊情形时可以合理差别处理。

## 六、程序正当原则审查
- 需要保障的程序价值：告知问题、听取陈述申辩、说明理由、明确整改要求。
- 是否需要补充程序：如拟停业整顿，应提供更充分的理由说明和程序保障。
- 说明：程序正当体现对相对人经营权益和生计利益的尊重。

## 七、诚信与信赖保护原则审查
- 是否存在合理信赖：案情未显示特殊行政承诺或许可变更。
- 是否可能损害信赖利益：直接停业可能影响经营者稳定经营预期。
- 是否需要缓冲或补救：可以设置整改期和复查机制。
- 说明：本案更适合通过整改期实现治理目标与信赖保护的平衡。

## 八、利益衡量
- 应优先保护的利益：食品安全、公共卫生。
- 可以适度让位的利益：经营自由、社区便利，但不得被完全忽视。
- 不得突破的底线：不得为体现整治力度而过度牺牲个体权益。
- 各方案利益得失比较：
  - 方案一：强化监管效果，但损害较大，可能偏重；
  - 方案二：兼顾食品安全、经营者生计和社区便利，损害较小。

## 九、裁量结论
- 倾向性结论：优先采取方案二，即责令限期整改并加强后续检查。
- 理由：方案二能够实现食品安全监管目的，同时减少对经营者和社区居民的影响，更符合合理性和比例原则。
- 最小损害或缓冲措施：明确整改期限、整改标准、复查节点；对即时风险可局部限制；逾期不改再升级处理。
- 不宜采取的方案：在案情未显示严重危害或拒不整改时，不宜直接停业整顿。
- 需进一步核实事项：违法严重程度、是否存在食品安全事故、是否有既往违法记录、当地同类案件处理尺度、整改能否消除隐患。

Best Practices

  1. First extract the discretion issue, then conduct a principle review.

  2. First conduct a principle review, then carry out interest balancing.

  3. The public interest must be concretized.

  4. Administrative efficiency, managerial convenience, and performance assessment pressure are usually only instrumental values.

  5. The proportionality principle must be fully reviewed for suitability, necessity, and balancing.

  6. When there is a milder alternative, give priority to the option with less harm.

  7. Rights that are made to yield should also retain a minimum level of protection.

  8. Information not stated in the case facts should be clearly marked and must not be fabricated.

  9. The discretion conclusion can only be a tendentious opinion, not a final administrative decision.

Limitations

  • It does not replace a complete administrative legality review.

  • It does not replace specialized legal application analysis such as administrative penalties, administrative licenses, administrative coercion, and administrative expropriation.

  • It is not responsible for searching for or confirming specific legal bases.

  • It does not make the final decision on behalf of the administrative agency.

  • It must not provide value justification for acts such as obvious illegality, ultra vires, forging evidence, concealing facts, or evading supervision.