Citizen Yong-Yo Ui versus the National Commission for Development and Development: Asking for a transparent threshold for price pricing of finished oil

One thing concerns every ordinary person, but it is always vague.

The cost of living, transportation, production and the cost of production of all the drivers, long-distance truck drivers, farmers engaged in agricultural production, large and small business people are profoundly affected by the price of finished oil.

Oil prices are a source of livelihood, a source of employment and a social price.

For many years, the public has seen only the results of each price rise and fall, but the complete process of pricing has remained elusive.

The most critical and central human information, the reference pricing criteria, measurement parameters, formulae, and negotiation processes, has never been made public.

With the most modest questions from ordinary people, citizens, in accordance with the law, submit public applications for information to the Government, in the hope that information on the performance of the duties related to the pricing of finished oil will be made public so that the price of oil for the public will be well documented and transparent and traceable.

However, after the application, the information was still not made public.

In order to safeguard the legitimate right of ordinary citizens to know, on 19 October 2026, the case of Bear Ryufie v. Public Information of the Government of the National Commission for Development and Reform (CNRD) was heard in the Beijing City Court of the First Intermediate People ' s Court.

This case, which appears to be a personal administrative action, is of vital interest to the billions of people.

01 Public information about people ' s lives, which should be transparent

In public perception, information about the security of the defence, the vitals of the State, is not publicly available under the law and is fully understandable and supported.

However, the price of oil for finished products is a purely public life-oriented act.

It serves the market, regulates prices, affects the livelihood of people, does not involve national security, and is not even more important in areas where strict confidentiality is required.

According to the Government Information Disclosure Ordinance, public information generated by the performance of the executive functions is a matter of public and private practice, except for the exception.

The contents of the application for permission to fly are clear and legitimate

The contents of the Pyre Long application are clear and legitimate. Processes for pricing oils, basis of measurement, method of calculation, participating entities and related meetings.

This is not an over-demand, but a desire for public decision-making to be open, clear and monitorable.

It is difficult to understand that there is a clear inconsistency in the reasons for the responses in relation to the same pricing information.

The previous response had identified it as internal process information that was not available, entering the evidence phase of the proceedings and changing the reasons for the lack of disclosure.

The same human-life message, which identifies the criteria as being inverted, inevitably leaves the public in doubt: why not show the society frankly about the pricing process that is of interest to all?

Major life cases, pleas contested

During this hearing, the issue of the question of the merits of the case was also of concern.

The case, which involved a national oil pricing mechanism for finished products, which covered the entire population and affected all sectors of the economy, was a typical case of major public interest and was of high social interest. In accordance with the relevant law, the head of the administrative body in such cases must appear before the court.

However, on the day of the hearing, there was no head of the defence unit present and only two ordinary staff members appeared before the court.

During the trial, the identity of the persons appearing before the court was legally verified and the competent person was asked for the reasons for not appearing before the court and for the written statement.

The court confirmed that the written statement had been made, but the plaintiff was not allowed to consult it, but only read out the reasons in court: the person in charge had other working arrangements.

This was clearly contested by the court.

The law strictly limits the possibility of the head of the executive to appear before the court, which is applicable only in cases of force majeure, accident, and non-replaceable exclusive official service. The general “other job available” does not meet the legal justifications.

At the same time, the Court recommended that the court should issue judicial recommendations, as appropriate, to regulate administrative responses and retain the right to follow up and report, in accordance with the law.

The defence did not respond to and defend any of the plaintiff ' s objections and submissions throughout the trial.

People are not afraid of oil price fluctuations, but of the rules.

The general public has never been able to accept the price of oil.

The international crude oil prices were already floating, and the markets were adjusted accordingly, which was well understood by the public.

What is really expected is open, fair and traceable pricing rules.

The population could accept a reasonable price adjustment, but could not accept a price model that was long-term vague, closed and unsupervised.

The public power functions, and the sun is the most needed. The more people ' s decisions affect the population, the more transparent and accessible they are and the more able they are to withstand social scrutiny.

If public information of the kind of people is freely withheld for various reasons, citizens ' right to know and to monitor will be weakened and public confidence in public decision-making will be affected.

04 A case for the people.

Many people think it's just a case of a man flying a bear.

Actually, it's not.

It is a lawsuit by ordinary citizens to ask for justice, transparency and the right to know for the whole society.

It is asking about not just the formulas and processes for calculating oil prices, but the bottom line for public authority to be open and transparent.

Public affairs, which originate from, serve, and are subject to public scrutiny.

The trial in this case is now successfully concluded.

Bear Yong-fy indicated that the trial would be strictly screened and that the public would be made aware of the full scope of the case, in due course, in public, without any real State secrets and with a strict security threshold.

Concluding remarks

At the heart of a society governed by the rule of law is the power that operates in the sun and the people ' s lives are guaranteed in transparency.

The information must be kept to the bottom line. But people's accounts should be in the sun.

The case is expected to be judged fairly, rigorously and with the will of the people. Each oil price adjustment is based on evidence, evidence and justification.

Every consumption of the people is made clear, solid and secure.