Meeting Agenda
Matters relating to the Constitution of Japan
A report was heard from the chairman of each Subcommittee; each report was followed by free discussion.
Report by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Ideal Constitution as Supreme
Law, and free discussion
The Emperor system, including research on the Imperial Household Law and
other laws related to the Imperial Family
Report by Subcommittee Chairman YASUOKA Okiharu
(main points)
>> There seems to be a consensus among all the parties that Article 2, which stipulates that the Imperial Throne shall be dynastic, is an "exceptional provision" that is permitted by the Constitution itself. However, it appears that there is still a difference of opinion as to whether this provision should be read as an embodiment of Japanese history and tradition, or whether the principle of gender equality set forth in Article 14 should be applied.
>> Reconciling modern constitutionalism with Japanese history and tradition has been an issue ever since the Meiji Constitution was written. Finding a solution to this problem will continue to be a major challenge, not just in the matter of succession to the throne, but in formulating a vision for the nation.
Free discussion
HAKARIYA Keikou (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> We need to examine the Constitution with a perspective oriented to the future.
>> Needless to say, the Emperor system has played a major role in the history of the nation. From a historical viewpoint, the Emperor-as-symbol system that we have today is in fact the original form of the system. Also, the Emperor's ability to unify the people is a great asset that has no parallel in other countries.
>> We should recognize female succession, in light of the fact that an Emperor's consort is permitted to become regent, thereby in effect acting as Emperor, as well as for reasons including the spirit of gender equality.
>> The existing system which does not allow an Emperor to abdicate is inhumane. We should recognize the Emperor's fundamental human rights.
FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The informant, Prof. YOKOTA, took a negative view of the status of the Emperor's public acts. In my view, however, the Emperor's acts of state are not enough by themselves for his symbolic status and significance to be manifest, and we should therefore recognize a broad range of public acts to complement his acts of state.
>> The very survival of the Emperor system may be at risk unless we move quickly to indicate whether or not female succession should be recognized. I think we must, of necessity, recognize female succession in the female line. In doing so, however, we will need to address many issues, such as the effect on the Imperial Household's finances of increasing the number of princes and princesses in the order of succession, and the conditions under which females gain or lose the status of Imperial Family member.
>> Unlike Prof. YOKOTA, I think that recognizing female succession may help to ameliorate the sexism that is still present in society today.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> As I understood it, Prof. YOKOTA's position was that the Emperor-as-symbol system is subordinate to the sovereignty of the people, and that, under modern constitutionalism, a rigorous distinction should be made between the normative value of the law and the interpretation of provisions as an embodiment of tradition.
>> Acts of the Emperor other than those stipulated in the Constitution as "acts in matters of state" should be classified strictly as private acts.
>> Female succession is not a constitutional question but a legal one, i.e., it is governed by the Imperial Household Law, and it should be discussed on that basis.
ONO Shinya (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> As I see it, the term "the people" in Article 1 encompasses all the people living in Japan in the present, the past, and the future, and the Constitution depicts the Emperor as the symbol of "the people" in this broadly defined sense.
SHIMOMURA Hakubun (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> While it is difficult to discuss the Emperor system in the same terms as fundamental human rights and gender equality, because Japan is a constitutional state the status of the Emperor system should be formally clarified in the Constitution and the law.
>> With regard to female succession to the throne, the framework of male succession in the male line should be retained. However, as Empresses have existed in the past as exceptions to the general rule, the Imperial Household Law should be revised to allow for an equivalent form of succession.
Report by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Security and International
Cooperation, and free discussion
Article 9, with a focus on the dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces to Iraq,
collective security, and the right of collective self-defense
Report by Subcommittee Chairman KONDO Motohiko
(main points)
>> Opinions diverged on a number of issues related to the right of collective self-defense, collective security, and the dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces to Iraq. These included whether we should maintain the pacifist principles of the Preamble and the ideals of Article 9, Paragraph 2, which states that Japan will not possess war potential or recognize the right of belligerency, or whether we should instead view defense matters in the light of the principles of international cooperation set forth in the Preamble or in terms of what is necessary for purposes of national self-defense.
>> I think that the points of contention in relation to Article 9 are gradually being made clear as a cumulative result of the debate so far, and that there is a need to pursue further in-depth discussion of the constitutional questions raised by these issues.
Free discussion
TAKEMASA Koichi (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> When one compares the principle of international cooperation and our bilateral alliance with the United States, I think that the former concept, having a basis in the Constitution, ranks higher than the latter. However, the time has come to examine the relationship between the two, together with the constitutional and legal basis for the extent of future operations of the Self-Defense Forces.
>> I believe that, on the grounds of the principle of international cooperation, it may be permissible in certain cases to use the minimum force necessary for self-defense.
>> The Diet has a weak role to play in the procedures laid down by the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law and the Special Measures Law for Iraq; among other reasons, this is because the Diet's approval is required only after the fact. To ensure civilian control, the Diet should in future seek a more active role, including the power to approve measures before the fact.
>> We should not underrate the importance of the United Nations, but should pursue UN reforms and related measures from the standpoint that the organization has a central role to play.
SENGOKU Yoshito (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> With regard to collective security mediated by the United Nations, Japan should play a greater role in the Security Council, and we should not hesitate to establish clear provisions for that purpose in the Constitution.
>> As a matter of legal principle, since neither Japan nor the United States has come under armed attack, I cannot accept the reasoning that links the current dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces to the exercise of the right of collective self-defense.
>> We should reaffirm that collective security mediated by the United Nations and the right of collective self-defense are two different concepts and have different necessary conditions.
NAKATANI Gen (Liberal Democratic Party)
(To Mr. SENGOKU)
>> The humanitarian mission of reconstruction assistance being carried out by the Self-Defense Forces in Iraq is not an invocation of the right of collective self-defense because it does not involve the use of force.
>> There are two sides to the question of international contributions: to a certain extent, it is necessary to contribute as part of our cooperation with other nations, yet some contributions amount to an exercise of the right of collective self-defense, which Japan cannot undertake. We should continue the debate on this question.
(To Mr. TAKEMASA)
>> As long as the United Nations is not fully functional, realistically speaking, we have no choice but to depend on security treaties. Can the United Nations be depended on in its present state?
>> Japan is presently providing only rear-echelon support, but in the case of collective security operations led by the United Nations, would we be able to engage in operations of all kinds, including the restoration of peace?
> TAKEMASA Koichi (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Japan should take the initiative and make sustained efforts to ensure that the United Nations functions.
>> In the case of UN-mediated collective security, Japan would have the option of participating in a peacekeeping force. Under present conditions, however, I think that peacekeeping operations are the maximum possible level of participation.
> SENGOKU Yoshito (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> In my personal opinion, as a matter of law it is possible to take part (in collective security operations in general), but the extent to which we should actually become involved is a matter of policy.
TOKAI Kisaburo (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The "right of collective self-defense" is a term of international law. We need to define it clearly, given that this is a matter to be decided by individual states.
>> This Commission should draw together a body of opinion on what Japan should do under the principle of international cooperation. If the result is consistent with the existing Constitution, the public will confirm this; if not, then it would be possible to create a new Constitution through the people's choice.
FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The right of self-defense should be stated explicitly in the Constitution, as there is a limit to how far the government can expand the activities of the Self-Defense Forces or handle similar questions by reinterpreting Article 9. It would not make sense to stipulate the right of self-defense in a Basic Law on Security, which would be a law subordinate to the Constitution.
>> In my view, the exercise of the right of collective self-defense and UN-mediated collective security are permissible under certain conditions.
>> Perhaps we could consider recognizing the exercise of the right of collective self-defense only under certain circumstances, such as when it involves partners in an alliance or cosignatories to a treaty, or within a limited region.
>> We should leave room for the debate to cover not only UN-mediated collective security, but also a framework for collective security in Asia.
>> The proposed UN standby force would be a waste of personnel and funds. Furthermore, as this concept would mean recognizing collective security while leaving Article 9 as it stands, we should approach it with caution.
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
>> Sovereign states undeniably have the right to defend themselves, but it is left to each state to determine, in its constitution, the conditions under which it may invoke that right. In Japan, the invocation of the right of self-defense is governed by Article 9.
>> We should base our approach to the right of collective self-defense on the way that it is dealt with and defined as an issue in the UN Charter. Also, given the opinion of successive Cabinets that Japan is internationally recognized as possessing the right of collective self-defense but that we will not exercise it, we should not come to an arbitrary interpretation but should go back to the basics of the issue.
(To Mr. KONDO)
>> In your report as Subcommittee Chairman, you said that you would seek to form a consensus without delay. Bearing in mind that this Commission is not empowered to submit bills to the Diet, did you have some goal or purpose in making this statement?
> KONDO Motohiko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I see no problem in seeking consensus where it can be achieved, after first conducting a full debate and investigation in this Commission. I hope you will accept that I meant no more than that.
> DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
>> I hope you will give careful thought to the wording of your Chairman's Report.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> Article 9 derives its power as a legal standard from reflection on past wars of aggression and from the popular consensus that we want never to wage another war. Further, I see no need to change Article 9 or the Preamble, as they have active peacemaking as their aim.
>> When we look at the more than fifty years of history since the UN Charter entered into force, we see that, in practice, the right of collective self-defense has become the basis for a right of attack and for military alliances. This is not acceptable, given that among the nations of the world today there is a trend away from entering into military alliances.
ONO Shinya (Liberal Democratic Party)
(To Ms. DOI)
>> The lack of a standard interpretation of the Constitution is a problem. As I see it, this Commission is expected to conduct research and to make some progress toward mapping out a course. Rather than merely having each party state its views, we should endeavor to reach a consensus.
AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)
>> It is regrettable that the Prime Minister has retreated from saying that there is room for research on the right of collective self-defense, to saying that it should be discussed. However, I am not in favor of a reinterpretation which would immediately recognize the right of collective self-defense.
>> Even supposing that we recognize the right of collective self-defense in revising the Constitution, we should consider "active" and "passive" rights of collective self-defense separately. I am prepared to recognize the latter, but certainly not the former.
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
(To Mr. ONO)
>> There is no need for this Commission to attempt to form a consensus. The Cabinet's Research Commission on the Constitution provides an instructive example, as its report set out the opinions of both sides. In that sense, I felt that your comment was odd.
> ONO Shinya (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I am not exerting pressure to lead the discussion in a particular direction from the outset.
>> In its debates, this Commission should consider the ideal form of the Constitution amid changing public attitudes and international conditions, and, if possible, we should endeavor to form a consensus and present to the public a future course for the nation.
YAMAHANA Ikuo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The Cabinet Legislation Bureau occupies a major position with regard to the authoritative interpretation of the Constitution. However, rather than relying on the judgment of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors should each come to their own decisions on legal standards, as befits the national legislative assembly. To that end, we should strengthen the Legislation Bureaus of the two Houses.
TANAHASHI Yasufumi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> As a premise, we should approach the debate by dividing the Constitution into those parts that make up its essence and cannot be revised, and those parts that can be revised. The debate has become tangled because we have not agreed on what elements of the pacifism to which Article 9 aspires constitute its immutable essence in a changing international environment.
>> While I do not think that we should immediately recognize the right of collective self-defense by means of interpretation or a constitutional amendment, we should discuss with open minds whether there is a need to recognize the right of collective self-defense in order to enable Japan to make a better international contribution.
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
(To Mr. ONO)
>> It is not reasonable to think that different views on the points at issue can be made to agree. I would like to see further efforts on the part of the Subcommittee Chairman.
Report by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Guarantee of Fundamental
Human Rights, and free discussion
Equality under the law (important issues involving the principle of equality,
such as the discrepancy in the weight of a single vote and the inheritance
portion of illegitimate children, with a discussion of business corporations
and human rights)
Report by Subcommittee Chairman YAMAHANA Ikuo
(main points)
>> Some members supported the view of the informant, Prof. UCHINO, that there is little need for constitutional revision in the area of human rights, but others contended that there is a need to make explicit provision in the Constitution for "new rights" such as the protection of privacy.
>> With regard to the meaning of "equal" in Article 14, the view that Article 14 requires only "formal equality" was put forward, but it was also argued that the article should be construed as a guarantee of "substantive equality" as well as formal equality.
>> On the question of whether the Constitution's human rights provisions apply to acts by private persons, many members expressed the view that we should carry on discussion of a theoretical structure to ensure that the intent of the Constitution applies adequately to private persons as well as to the state.
>> Together with liberty, the ideal of equality is historically significant as the driving force behind the abolition of class-based societies and the establishment of modern constitutionalism. In the Constitution of Japan, equality is stipulated in Article 14 as a key principle which has the effect of a general rule in the area of human rights. Since the enactment of the Constitution, the spirit of Article 14 has been very important in guaranteeing the human rights of the people, and we must respond to the needs of the times by more fully realizing this ideal.
Free discussion
HIRAI Takuya (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Issues relating to "equality under the law" should be considered not only in the light of Article 14 but also from the viewpoint of the right to "the pursuit of happiness" in Article 13. It seems to me that we will find the key to resolving many issues in this way.
>> When one looks at the declining birthrate from the perspective of the principle of equality, illegitimacy is an important issue. Considering that children come into the world regardless of their own wishes, it is difficult to accept discrimination against those born out of wedlock. As a mature society, Japan is being called on to think deeply and compassionately about how people live, and Article 13 points the way. This issue is also related to the question of what provision to make for respect for the individual and the individual's relationship with the family.
>> When we view the problem of the declining birthrate in the light of the principle of equality, it becomes clear that sex discrimination in the corporate sector should be approached in terms of the intent of the Constitution as a whole, or a direction for Japan as a whole. It seems to me that the route to a solution will be found when both men and women pursue an autonomous way of life and, as the mainstay of the nation, think actively about its future.
>> If every citizen visualizes Japan's ideal course in the 21st century, this will lead them to raise children to whom the nation's future can be entrusted. This concept finds expression in Article 13 as well as Article 14.
FURUKAWA Motohisa (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The Constitution declares that democracy is a fundamental principle, and the form of democracy that it adopts is indirect. However, since the legitimacy of indirect democracy rests upon the votes of individual voters, the existence of a discrepancy in the weight of a single vote distorts the process of democratic government from the viewpoint of equality under the law. Despite the gravity of this problem, it is proving very difficult to achieve a radical solution. We must think about how to create a system that can correct the discrepancy in the weight of a single vote.
FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Like Prof. UCHINO, I believe that Article 14 guarantees formal equality, but I think that the spirit of the Constitution calls for efforts to achieve substantive equality by legislative means, within reasonable limits.
>> In the United States, many measures designed to achieve substantive equality, such as affirmative action, have been introduced. However, where such measures have gone too far, they have given rise to reverse discrimination and other problems, and since the 1990s there has been debate over whether this approach should be reconsidered. Although I recognize the need to introduce affirmative action and similar measures, I think that, in the process, it is important to pay attention to consistency and to set limits.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> With regard to the human rights clauses, I agree with Prof. UCHINO's view that, rather than advocating constitutional revision, we should improve the measures taken under the existing Constitution.
>> The existing Constitution contains detailed human rights provisions which hold good in the 21st century. But we should also be aware of the background to these provisions. They were enacted because people reflected on the harm done by the lack of human rights provisions in the first half of the 20th century and because, in keeping with the times, they demanded that social rights be actively incorporated, and efforts were made to meet this demand.
>> There is no need to revise the Constitution to provide for the right to privacy and related rights, as these already have a basis in Article 13. The important thing is to institute policies to realize them.
>> Three years ago, in its ruling on a suit by former Hansen's disease patients seeking compensation from the state for having been confined in isolation, the Kumamoto District Court rejected the government's policy of forced isolation, and in response the legislative branch announced that it would take appropriate action. Article 13 formed the basis for this outcome. We are now being confronted with the serious problems affecting former Hansen's disease patients still living in sanitariums, such as the question of nursing care, and we are being called to account for what we have done in the past three years to realize the ideals of Article 13.
TSUJI Megumu (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> I support the view that Article 14 guarantees formal equality.
>> However, a problem arises in that Article 14 is said to allow reasonable distinctions. For example, take the question of whether it is "reasonable" to make a distinction between the portions that legitimate and illegitimate children inherit by law (Article 900 of the Civil Code, proviso to item 4). When respect for legal marriage is weighed in the balance against respect for fundamental human rights, we should ascribe a value of a higher order to fundamental human rights.
>> That the proviso to item 4 of Article 900 of the Civil Code has been ruled constitutional by the courts is problematic, as it reveals the passive attitude of the judiciary.
YAMAHANA Ikuo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The concepts of "formal" and "substantive" equality are a development of the basic concept in socioeconomic terms; as interpretative concepts, "absolute" and "relative" equality are more important. Whether to accept relative equality as the standard, as a matter of interpretation, involves deciding whether to require that substantive equality should consist of equality of results, or only equality of conditions.
>> The only difference specified in the Constitution between the electoral systems for the two Houses of the Diet is that, in the House of Councillors, elections are held for half the members every three years. The House of Councillors was assigned the character of a regional representative body by the Public Offices Election Law; under the Constitution, both Houses are "representatives of all the people." Hence, I cannot agree with the Supreme Court's decision that the acceptable disparity in the weight of a single vote differs between the two Houses on the grounds that the House of Councillors is a regional representative body. That status was conferred at the level of legislation, not by the Constitution.
>> Members of the Diet have a duty to reduce the discrepancy in the weight of a single vote and bring the ratio close to 1:1.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> The discrimination against illegitimate children seen in Japan has drawn strong criticism from the international community.
>> It seems to me that the materials that the Commission Office prepared for use in the Subcommittee's debate on this occasion were colored too strongly by the informant's theory.
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
>> Although Japan is an advanced nation, by international standards it is quite far behind in addressing human rights issues, especially discrimination against women. I agree completely with Prof. UCHINO'S view that, rather than advocating constitutional revision, we should improve the measures taken under the existing Constitution.
>> We cannot create a better Constitution than the one we have now by debating the possibility of constitutional revision when too little effort has been put into measures to actually improve human rights under the existing Constitution.
FURUKAWA Motohisa (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Given that there is almost no discernible difference between the present roles of the Upper and Lower Houses, it seems questionable that the courts have established different standards for the two Houses regarding the imbalance in the allocation of seats. If there are to be different standards, so as not to violate the principle of equality, we should make provision in the Constitution for the Upper House to play a different role from the Lower House.
Report by the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Ideal Government and Organizations,
and free discussion
The judicial system, with a focus on reforms to enable public participation
in the administration of justice and to make the system more accessible
Report by Subcommittee Chairman KINOSHITA Atsushi
(main points)
>> A number of views were put forward based on the perception that the system of constitutional review is presently being implemented in a passive way and that it should be made to function more actively. The proposed solutions included recognizing abstract review of constitutionality under the existing Constitution, and establishing a Constitutional Court. Wide-ranging views were also expressed with regard to the "lay judge" system. Among other points, the speakers discussed how the system relates to the judiciary, with its "undemocratic" nature, independence, and objectivity; how the system would affect the guarantee of the accused's right to trial; how it relates to the Japanese social environment; and the measures needed to ensure that the system takes root.
>> From the viewpoint of the rule of law, I felt the need for further in-depth discussion, taking in the overall picture, particularly in light of our responsibility as politicians to put in place a judicial system that will enable the public to obtain effective redress when their rights are violated.
Free discussion
IWANAGA Mineichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> As I understand it, the lay judge system is constitutional. If public participation in the administration of justice is to trigger a major change in criminal trials as we know them and ensure that judicial reform succeeds, the system must be designed carefully and the public must be encouraged to develop an awareness of its role in the administration of justice.
>> The check function exercised by the judiciary over the executive branch must be strengthened to secure the separation of powers, to ensure thorough application of the principle of the rule of law, and to reorientate Japanese society toward after-the-fact checks instead of prior approval. To achieve these goals, there is a need to review the system of administrative litigation.
>> Protection of intellectual property rights has become a serious problem worldwide, and I have heard that, in Japan, the system for specialized handling of related cases is to be radically strengthened by creating a High Court for Intellectual Property, among other measures. We need to carry out appropriate and timely reforms of the system while following the changing situation closely.
SHIMOMURA Hakubun (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The legislative, executive, and judicial powers in Japan are supposedly independent of one another, but there are problems of judicial passivism and a dominant executive branch. The strict requirements for bringing administrative litigation are particularly problematic. Accordingly, changes are needed to make the administrative litigation system more accessible and establish a balance among the three powers.
>> As Japan is seeking to make its judicial system more open through reforms, it is only natural that the public should participate in the administration of justice, and I consider the lay judge system to be constitutional as a matter of course. However, opinion polls have indicated problems, including the fact that the system has not gained sufficient public acceptance. It is important to design the lay judge system so that it will gain the public's acceptance.
FURUKAWA Motohisa (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> In the past, the executive branch has often applied the law at its arbitrary discretion while the judiciary has remained passive. If the fact that Japan is a nation ruled by law is to have real substance, the judicial branch should actively take on a greater role. To achieve this, the public should play a part in the administration of justice through the lay judge system, and the judicial process should no longer be the province of a few specialists, but should be readily comprehensible to the public and trusted by them.
>> It is necessary to democratize the judiciary in order to ensure that judges do not continue to interpret the law as if they were career bureaucrats; for example, judges should be selected from among experienced lawyers and other legal experts.
TSUJI Megumu (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> As a result of the "undemocratic nature" of the administration of justice, at present we have a judicial system in which the judiciary has been unable to function as a check on the executive branch; the low rate of victories by the plaintiffs in administrative litigation is one example. Public participation in the administration of justice is an attempt to let some fresh air into this "undemocratic" judiciary. We should ask ourselves whether the lay judge system will have the desired effect.
>> If the people's right of access to the court is actually weakened by public participation in the administration of justice, as suggested by Prof. ICHIKAWA, the lay judge system will be no more than a fig leaf for greater judicial severity.
>> Under the lay judge system, it is expected that all the issues in a criminal case will be introduced in preparatory proceedings lasting six months, with only the judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers in attendance. If that is so, I doubt whether having members of the public present for the examination of witnesses in open court over a two- or three-day period will lead to a conclusion that conforms with popularly accepted ideas. We should discuss the proposed system carefully, lest it lead to a revival of the prewar preliminary hearing, which is a threat to the principle that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> The first aim of judicial reform is that the administration of justice be open and easily accessible to the public, and that it provide effective redress. I am opposed to making the losing party in a lawsuit pay the legal expenses, as this would tend to distance the public from the courts.
>> The second key point is the question of how to guarantee that the principle of popular sovereignty comes into play in the actual trial process. In the end, this comes down to the independence of judges as stipulated in Article 76, Paragraph 3. Thus, it is desirable to make the system of constitutional review functional, and it is also essential to carry out studies with a view to the unification of the legal profession including judge selection from among experienced lawyers and other legal experts.
>> Judicial reform should be considered carefully from two aspects: that of the right of access to the courts, which is stipulated in Article 32, and that of the judiciary, which is set out in Chapter VI.
TOKAI Kisaburo (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Under the separation of powers, it would be possible to establish an administrative court as a special tribunal to handle situations where the executive and judicial branches disagree. In that case, the question of Article 76, Paragraph 2 would arise, but there is a need to establish guarantees for a system that reflects the will of the people.
NAGAOKA Yoji (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The lay judge system is one option, but there is a considerable gap between the judiciary, with its independence, specialized knowledge, and objectivity, and public participation in the administration of justice. Moreover, opinion polls show that the public does not fully understand how the proposed system would work. Since the lay judge system would place a burden on the public, we should discuss it in greater depth.
>> In Japan, compared with the United States, one feels that the judicial system is more remote from the public, and thus I am doubtful whether this system will become a truly living part of Japanese society. An essential condition of success will be to educate people, starting in elementary and junior high school, to be conscious of their own role in governance, especially the administration of justice.
MASHIKO Teruhiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The present system of popular review of Supreme Court justices is of doubtful effectiveness. We should scrap the relevant provisions without delay and devise a new method.
>> I think that the introduction of a lay judge system is only proper from the viewpoint of public participation, but in practice it may take time for the system to become established. We should allow ample time to discuss it in this Commission, also, in order to avoid undue haste.