The complainant's rights in the hearing:
All opinions put forward at the hearing must be answered by the decision maker in the final ruling, otherwise the relevant actions may be invalid. In American administrative law, a formal hearing usually has two opposing parties selected by lottery, and an administrative judge is appointed by the administrative organ to preside over the hearing. The hearing completely cloned the court debate, and both sides not only expressed their opinions.
I will also present my own witnesses and documents to support my point of view. Finally, the administrative judge must make a final ruling like a court trial, and the ruling must respond to the views of both parties in detail, otherwise the ruling may be invalid due to procedural problems in judicial review.
In foreign countries, hearings are often used in legislative procedures. The hearing in legislation is more casual, and the hearing representatives elected by lottery will express their opinions on a bill, which will become an important reference for members to vote. Hearing in legislative procedure is not as binding as hearing in administrative procedure because of the immunity of speech and voting.
In other words, members can completely ignore the opinions at the hearing, but in a democratic system, members should consider the votes, and the hearing reflects the opinions of voters. Few members ignored these opinions.
In China, besides the hearing system in administrative procedure, there is also the hearing system in legislation. People's congresses in many places have held hearings when formulating local laws and regulations, and the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) has also held hearings when amending the individual income tax law.