On Legislative Guiding Ideology Of The Civil Retrial Procedure

China′s current civil retrial procedure has certain value and function in promoting judicial justice,maintaining judicial authority and improving judicial progress. But as the civil retrial procedure has some defection in its system construction, it causes a number of difficulties in practice. This is mainly because of our country's guiding ideology of"to seek truth from facts, to rectify whatever is wrong". This guiding ideology has its historic roots. In order to promote the revolution of trial and supervision smoothly, we should see it clearly that the guiding ideology of"to seek truth from facts, to rectify whatever is wrong"has many disadvantages in civil retrial procedure. We should, in theory and in practice, recognize and analyze again about the idea of"to seek truth from facts, to rectify whatever is wrong". Taking into consideration of the regularity and specialization of judicial practice and advanced foreign retrial theory, we ought to reconstruct the guiding ideology of our country's civil retrial procedure, finishing the change of"to seek truth from facts, to rectify whatever is wrong"to"the balance of legally correct wrongs and maintain the res judicata and stability of valid judgment". The new guiding ideology follows the principal of united legal truthfulness and objective truthfulness,rights egoism,ending the procedure in time and so on, initiating people to learn modern judicial belief. The modern judicial belief includes the beliefs from"all wrongs must be corrected"to"wrongs must be corrected legally", from"objective truthfulness"to"legal truthfulness", from"suit even if there is no bring"to"no suit if not bring", from"judicial fairness first"to"fairness and efficiency", from"endless retrial"to"limited retrial". Under this new guiding ideology, we should aiming the revolution of civil retrial procedure at building retrial lawsuit, strengthen the parties'rights of retrial application, weaken the interference of the authority, scientifically clarify the cause of action for retrial. Achieving the proper balance between correcting error in accordance with law and maintain the stability and authority of valid judgment.