Meeting Agenda
Matters relating to the Constitution of Japan
1. A free discussion was held to conclude the current session of the Diet.
2. The closing speech was made by Chairman NAKAYAMA
Free discussion to conclude the current session of the Diet (in order of
presentation)
Initial round of comments by representatives of each party
YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Article 96 lays down the method for constitutional amendments, anticipating that the Constitution will undergo revision as the times change, but no legislation has been enacted for the implementation of national referendums. Thus, the Diet, which has a mandate from the people, can be said to have been derelict in its duty to provide a way for the people to exercise their sovereignty. We should act without delay to put in place a law on the procedure for constitutional amendments.
>> In 2001, the Cross-Party Parliamentary Group for the Establishment of a Research Committee on the Constitution submitted a bill partially revising the Diet Law and a national referendum bill. The debate on these two bills brought to light a number of views and problems, including the following points: (a) although the bills did not contain provisions on referring proposed amendments to a committee, a standing committee, the Committee on the Constitution, should be established to carry on the work of this Commission; (b) the prerequisite for submitting a draft proposal of a constitutional amendment, which at present is the support of at least 100 members in the Lower House and 50 members in the Upper House, should be relaxed to permit a deeper level of debate with each party submitting its own proposal; (c) when an amendment is initiated, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the House of Councillors should each announce that fact, together with the contents of the amendment; (d) the electoral lists for national referendums should be the same as those for national elections; (e) in some cases, there might be practical difficulties in printing a proposed amendment on the voting paper; (f) national referendums should not coincide with national elections.
>> We should allow constitutional amendments to be initiated with the consent of a simple majority in each House, so that, among other things, we gain more opportunities to sound out public opinion about the Constitution amid rapidly changing conditions both at home and abroad. In addition, in the requirement expressed as "the affirmative vote of a majority" in national referendums, there are different interpretations as to what constitutes the total number of which a majority is required; this point should also be clarified in the Constitution.
YAMAHANA Ikuo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> At the Open Hearings, members of the public and of the Commission spoke of Japan's efforts toward disarmament and how they are evaluated by the international community. I think these things should be introduced more widely to the Japanese public.
>> I think that the view of the Constitution put forward by Prof. INOGUCHI Kuniko, former Ambassador to the UN Conference on Disarmament, carried considerable weight as it was based on her personal knowledge of efforts under way in the United Nations.
>> The Subcommittee on Guarantee of Fundamental Human Rights debated a wide range of topics, including prior suppression of publication and the issue of visits to Yasukuni Shrine by public officials. I feel that the suggestion that the Constitution should provide for duties as well as rights is out of place, given the status of Chapter III as a declaration of human rights.
>> In many areas, not only human rights, it is problematic that we have been carrying on the debate without first distinguishing whether issues should be resolved by legislation or at the constitutional level. For example, the Japanese government views the death penalty as a matter of penal policy, whereas other countries view it as a human rights issue. In debating any question, we should first distinguish whether it is a matter of legislative policy or a universal issue at the constitutional level.
>> I am not convinced that the present system which allows questions of constitutionality to be raised only in judicial proceedings is appropriate, since judicial power is the last bastion of the guarantee of human rights. We should make a connection between our approach to human rights and our approach to the system of governance, including a Constitutional Court.
OTA Akihiro (New Komeito)
>> The New Komeito's stance on the Constitution is that, while firmly maintaining the three great principles and Article 9, in particular, there is a need to add new provisions to cover rights which have been brought to public attention in the light of contemporary trends, such as environmental rights and the right to privacy.
>> The phrase "as an integral part of this Constitution" in Article 96, Paragraph 2, reflects the concept of making additions to the existing provisions, like amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and I believe that there is an affinity here with my party's stance in favor of "adding to the Constitution."
>> Rather than the question of whether it was imposed, what is problematic about the existing Constitution is the fact that it is predicated on a Western belief system. We need a constitution whose philosophical basis is Japanese.
>> Because the Constitution, as an overall framework, proclaims "respect for the individual" in Article 13 and then stipulates the rights but not the duties thereof, the "individual" of which it speaks is a selfish individual; a public dimension is missing. What we need in these times is not so much respect for the individual as "respect for human beings," founded on the concept of respect for life.
>> The Constitution's philosophical and ideological background consisted of the situation at the end of World War II. As the situation regarding education has changed since then, I think that we could make more positive provisions in this area, such as provisions for lifelong education.
>> We need a future-oriented constitutional debate that envisions Japan twenty to thirty years from now. Among the important key words in such a debate will be IT, the genome, the environment, and resident participation.
>> In a future-oriented view of the Constitution, it will be important to strive to make it a "popular constitution" (establishing popular sovereignty more firmly), a "human rights constitution" (providing more clearly for human rights), and an "environmental constitution" (making environmental awareness the foundation of 21st-century Japan).
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> Japan should take pride in its Constitution before the world for a number of reasons, including its enduring pacifist principles and its guarantee of the human rights of the people, with whom sovereignty resides. The Japanese Communist Party takes the position that we should keep the present Constitution in its entirety and put its principles of peace, human rights, and democracy into practice. As many of the attendants during the current Diet session pointed out, what we need to do is not to revise the Constitution but to reform actual politics based on the Constitution.
>> What is required of Japan is not to send the Self-Defense Forces overseas but to uphold Article 9 and to play a positive role in securing the peace and stability of Asia and the world.
>> Reforms founded on popular sovereignty are necessary in a number of areas, including realization of Article 25, which guarantees wholesome and cultured living and seeks adequate social security; realization of gender equality as set forth in Articles 14, 24, and 44; reflection of the diverse popular will in the Diet; making the judicial review system function actively; and furthering decentralization based on the spirit of local autonomy.
>> To change Article 9 would be, frankly, an attempt to turn Japan into a nation that fights wars overseas alongside the U.S. military. The efforts to revise the Constitution along these lines did not emerge from among the Japanese people; in the background, there are the demands of the United States.
>> Revising Article 9, including explicitly stipulating the right of collective self-defense, is contrary to enduring pacifist principles and world peace. Further, the Self-Defense Forces' participation in the multinational force stationed in Iraq is unconstitutional, even by the standards of the government's own opinion until now. Nor is it permissible under the Special Measures Law for Iraq. We demand withdrawal of the Self-Defense Forces from Iraq.
>> The Constitution is part of the historical trend of modern constitutionalism, which limits state authority in order to guarantee human rights. This point has a bearing on the obligation of public officials to respect and uphold the Constitution, which is stipulated in Article 99, but the Commission has not conducted any research on this theme.
>> Environmental rights and the right to privacy arise from existing constitutional norms, especially those of Articles 13 and 25. They are included in the fundamental human rights already guaranteed by the Constitution.
>> Since there is no call for constitutional revision, there is no need for a law prescribing the amendment procedure. Furthermore, this Commission should be conducting research on the Constitution, not discussing a successor organization. I am opposed to creating a standing committee to review constitutional amendments, as this would destabilize the Constitution.
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
>> The Research Commission on the Constitution was established for the purpose of conducting broad and comprehensive research on the Constitution, not to conduct discussions with the aim of revising the Constitution. We should consider seriously the circumstances which led to the establishment of this body as a research commission, which is not empowered to submit legislative proposals, instead of a standing committee as had been proposed. Given this background, the Commission should also conduct research on the extent to which the existing Constitution is being realized, in light of the obligation of public officials to respect and uphold it.
>> We would have our priorities completely back to front if, at a time when the Constitution is being stripped of its substance, we abandoned the effort to implement it and set about bringing it into line with the realities. The Constitution's increasing loss of substance can be seen, for example, in the fact that Japan's exclusively defensive posture, civilian control, and the three principles on arms exports are becoming dead letters, while the nature of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty has been changed by the Japan-U.S. Joint Declaration on Security and the new Guidelines for Japan-U.S. Defense Cooperation. In this connection, in each of the Subcommittees there were many thought-provoking comments from informants who advocated not revising the Constitution but improving the institutions and measures to implement it.
>> One has to wonder whether the Diet is qualified to initiate constitutional amendments in view of the way it forces passage of bills that have a direct impact on the national life, such as the recent bill to revise the pension system, without deliberating adequately.
>> Since the membership of this Commission was set at fifty with the intention of including members from the smaller parties, those parties should also be included in the debate over editorial guidelines for the final report.
>> At the Open Hearings, it was pointed out that the public does not know what is being discussed in this Commission. In addition to putting out more information about the Commission, we should consider scheduling future Open Hearings on weekends or public holidays.
>> This Commission has, more than once, been short of a quorum in its meetings. It has been pointed out that the Commission thereby demonstrates a lack of enthusiasm for its research on the supreme law of the land.
Comments after the first round
HIRANUMA Takeo (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Some people say they can accept the existing Constitution because it has taken root or because it has enabled us to maintain peace. But as a nation under the rule of law, we need to set things straight, and I believe that the origins of the Constitution were flawed.
>> Nobody can deny that the existing Constitution was imposed in a high-handed way under the Occupation.
>> We should enact a new Constitution taking into account the traditions, culture, and history which have made Japan what it is, and drawing on the collective wisdom.
MORIYAMA Mayumi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Almost sixty years have passed since the Constitution was enacted, and both the international and the domestic situation have changed during that time. Hence, in my view, we need to revise the Constitution in order to resolve problematic points.
>> As part of the reforms of the judicial system, it has been decided to introduce a lay judge system five years from now, but we should establish a constitutional provision on the public's role in the administration of justice, like Article 102 of the Italian Constitution.
>> The remuneration of judges has been reduced, like that of all civil servants. I do not question this, but I think that, as a precaution for the future, we should add to Articles 79 and 80 a provision to the effect that judges' pay can be reduced by law, as long as this does not infringe on the exercise of their professional authority or disturb the balance among the Diet, the Cabinet, and the judiciary.
>> With regard to the organization of the Diet, although I recognize the value of the bicameral system, I think we should also give detailed consideration to a unicameral system in order to expedite deliberations. Also, with regard to the establishment of the Judges Impeachment Court and the Judges Indictment Committee, the roles of the two Houses should be divided.
TOKAI Kisaburo (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I think that our research, in the form of questions to informants, open hearings, overseas study missions, and so on, has laid out before us the points of contention regarding revision.
>> I do not deny that the Constitution has a weighty significance as the supreme law of the nation, but it does not precede the nation itself. As I see it, the nation comes first, then a vision for the nation and a constitution.
>> Although the Constitution was enacted under very particular circumstances, we cannot state categorically that it was imposed, and I think it played a great role in the postwar recovery. Today, however, almost sixty years later, social conditions and Japan's responsibilities in the world have changed, and I believe that it is the role of the legislature to gain the consensus of the people and revise the Constitution.
>> Under the principle of popular sovereignty, the legislature is not fulfilling its responsibilities if it fails to allow the people to express their views on the Constitution. We should therefore draw up rules for national referendums without delay.
>> We should pursue the work of this Commission in future in such a way as to contribute to the national debate.
TSUJI Megumu (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Judicial passivism, the direction of decentralization and local autonomy, and the gap between the Self-Defense Forces and the text of Article 9 are serious problems in constitutional terms. We should avoid hasty discussions and carry on a true national debate.
>> Avoiding haste, we should discuss the Constitution as a whole, not just from the perspective of issues identified by the mass media.
>> The fact that a speaker at an Open Hearing commented that the public was not very aware of the existence of this Commission shows that there is not enough debate on constitutional revision among the public.
>> We need to take action in some way with regard to the gap between the Self-Defense Forces and the provisions of Article 9.
>> Seen in a historical context, Japan today is in transition, and to place a strong emphasis on our sovereignty as a nation-state would be to adopt a historically limited perspective. Even if we make the Japan-U.S. alliance the underlying basis of our approach, I think we should place importance on partnerships in Asia and not favor exercising the right of collective self-defense.
ITO Chuji (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The Constitution is the basic law of the nation, but I have some doubts about its remaining unchanged to the letter nearly sixty years after it was enacted, given the changes that have occurred on the international and domestic scenes.
>> The disconnect between present-day realities and the Constitution's provisions is a problem that, as a nation ruled by law, we cannot fail to address. We should conduct an in-depth debate which squarely addresses this fact, in part to clear up the public's distrust of politics.
>> The parties' stances on constitutional revision are divided between absolute opposition and the view that it is necessary. Proponents of both positions need to present a national strategy for Japan's contributions to the international community and Asia over the next fifty years.
>> The government is pursuing structural reforms such as the "trinity reforms" of local government powers and tax revenues. This should be done in unison with the constitutional debate.
>> We should focus the debate on specific points, such as (a) the question of whether succession to the Imperial throne should remain restricted to males; (b) the large gap between reality and the Constitution with regard to the right of collective self-defense and security issues, as seen in the Self-Defense Force activities in Iraq, and the question of how to provide for this in the Constitution; (c) with regard to the ideal form of administrative organization, the question of what form the national and local governments should take, including whether to introduce a do-shu system; (d) the fact that the courts are failing to decide questions concerning the gap between reality and the Constitution, and the need for us, as a nation ruled by law, to decide such issues by means of a Constitutional Court.
>> We should give Article 96 concrete form and thus lay the groundwork for the people to decide whether to amend the Constitution.
FUTADA Koji (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I am glad that the issue of constitutional revision has become a matter of national concern.
>> In regard to Article 96, the present political situation makes it impossible to obtain the approval of two-thirds or more of all the members of each House as required to initiate an amendment. It will be necessary to seek the public's view first, in a national referendum.
>> If the bicameral system is to have any meaning, we need to free debate in the House of Councillors from party-line constraints.
>> With regard to local government, municipal mergers and the "trinity reforms" should be pursued while weighing whether these measures are in keeping with the spirit of local autonomy, and we should also keep in mind the possibility of abolishing the prefectures in the future.
NODA Takeshi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The existing Constitution has a provisional character; properly speaking, we should have revised it when we regained our independence. Further, as time passes it has become decidedly out of touch with present-day realities, and this gives rise to problems touching on the law-abiding spirit that is proper to a nation ruled by law. This Commission has arrived at the stage where it should initiate concrete measures reaching out to the people.
>> The debate over the constitutional interpretation that we possess but will not exercise the right of collective self-defense is one with few parallels in other countries; it is regrettable that, even though it is a political matter, our course on this question has been prescribed by the Cabinet Legislation Bureau. We should revise the text so that it can be readily understood by anyone who has completed compulsory schooling.
>> It is all very well to stipulate the dignity of the individual, but, amid the breakdown of family ties, I question the tendency to blame everything immediately on society. We should give a clear constitutional status to mutual support within the family.
>> With regard to the pension system, there are problems in the system itself. We should clarify the status of the social security system after first reaching a judgment based on the Constitution as to the proper balance between taxes and social security contributions.
EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The arguments for making exceptions based on the right of self-defense to Article 9's prohibition on the use of force have become mixed up with the arguments for making exceptions based on uses of force that come under the principle of international cooperation and that are not a sovereign right of the nation.
>> Advocates of incorporating history and tradition into the Constitution seem to have in mind history and tradition from the Meiji Restoration to World War II, but this was an anomalous period in Japanese history. Looking at Japanese history as a whole, one can point to liberal features such as (a) widespread polytheism, and (b) acceptance of foreign cultures. We should take the debate back to these basics.
>> Some people argue that more provision should be made in the Constitution for duties, but it is unclear what the point of stipulating duties would be, considering that constitutions exist in the first place to set limits to the state's ability to impose duties on the people by legislation.
>> It is regrettable that, while on the one hand we are engaged in a constructive debate oriented toward the future, on the other the same tired old arguments about the process by which the existing Constitution was enacted are still being put forward.
TAKEMASA Koichi (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The Prime Minister speaks of reconciling the Japan-U.S. alliance with the principle of international cooperation, but the latter is a higher-level concept than the former, as shown by the fact that the Preamble provides for it but not for the bilateral alliance. Given Japan's geographical situation, also, we should place importance on the principle of international cooperation.
>> It is problematic that, despite the statement in Article 41 that the Diet is the highest organ of state power, in practice a powerful executive branch governs at its own discretion. The decision to participate in a multinational force should not have been taken by revising a Cabinet order, nor should a UN resolution determine the effect of the Special Measures Law for Iraq. Further, the Diet should have a greater say in the signing of treaties; the government's opinion that certain kinds of treaty do not require Diet approval (the so-called "three Ohira principles") should be amended.
NAGAOKA Yoji (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> We should revise the Constitution, mainly because of the circumstances in which it was enacted and the fact that nearly sixty years have passed since then. The time has come to consider establishing a concrete amendment procedure and putting in place a structure for the work of constitutional revision.
>> It would be difficult to introduce a system of direct democracy such as a system of advisory national referendums; instead, we should ensure that parliamentary democracy functions soundly. To that end, we should consider: (a) countering the decline in electoral turnouts by stating clearly in the Constitution that political participation is a duty, educating the public about political participation, and taking measures to prevent voters from staying away from the polls; (b) relaxing the restrictions on provision of information to the public by Diet members, and supporting these activities; (c) strengthening the support staffs of Diet members.
>> Local bodies need to have the right to levy independent taxes in order to make local public finances more efficient and rational, and a radical transfer of tax revenue sources from the national government to local authorities is also needed. Moreover, the tax collection systems at the national and local levels should be integrated into a single system to increase efficiency, ensure fairness, and reduce the attendant costs.
>> Although the formalities are gone through to obtain the Diet's consent to a general treaty after it is signed and before it is ratified, in practice it is difficult for the Diet to withhold its consent. We should consider making explicit provision in the Constitution to enable the Diet to play a part before Japan signs important treaties like FTAs.
SHIMOMURA Hakubun (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The Constitution does not rule out the possibility of a female Emperor. While making male succession in the male line the general rule, we should recognize female succession in exceptional cases.
>> Private school education has been taken up in the debate over revision of the Fundamental Law on Education, but as it is feared that subsidizing private schools would infringe Article 89, we should revise Article 89 accordingly.
>> I suggest that the phrase "religious education" in Article 20, Paragraph 3 has a different meaning in Japan today than it did when the Constitution was enacted. While I grant that religious education directed toward belief in a particular deity should be banned, there is a need for religious education that is not directed toward belief in a particular deity in order to cultivate the higher sentiments and instill a level of sensitivity conducive to moral education, and we should revise the Constitution to that end.
>> In order to realize these revisions, there should be a transition from the present Commission to a standing committee with the power to propose constitutional amendments.
KONO Taro (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> It is meaningless to debate whether or not the Constitution was imposed. We should be discussing how to ensure that the Constitution develops and contributes to the nation's future prosperity.
>> I agree that there is no need to set forth the duties of the people in the Constitution because the framework of the Constitution consists of protecting human rights from the government.
>> Together with legislating the procedure for constitutional amendments without delay, we need to establish a committee to deliberate proposed constitutional amendments.
>> We should make explicit provision in Article 9 for the rights of individual and collective self-defense and Japan's role in assuring world peace. To gradually build up facts on the ground by changing the interpretation of Article 9 is not the right way to proceed.
>> I am doubtful as to whether the parliamentary cabinet system is functioning properly. In view of criticisms that the Diet's deliberations have become a mere formality, we should also discuss the possibility of introducing a presidential system.
>> We need to study whether to maintain the existing bicameral system in which the two Houses have almost identical powers. The House of Councillors could become a second chamber with functions that complement the House of Representatives, or it could represent the do-shu in the event that a do-shu system is introduced.
SONODA Yasuhiro (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Arguments based on the process by which the Constitution was enacted are backward-looking. In my view, even if the Constitution was imposed, when a thing is good, it's good. The Diet's task is to present ideas to the public in a more forward-looking way.
>> Some people say we should relax the requirements for initiating constitutional amendments, but the present requirements are not especially rigorous compared to those of other countries, and there is no need to change them.
>> Of the three constitutional principles of popular sovereignty, pacifism, and respect for fundamental human rights, the last is the most central; the other two exist to protect it. We should propose constitutional amendments in order to create better conditions.
OMURA Hideaki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> While the Constitution has certainly played an important role in the postwar period, we should not hesitate to drastically review it in keeping with contemporary developments and based on a common understanding among the people.
>> In the area of domestic issues, we should review the structure of government and fundamental human rights, taking self-reliance and personal responsibility as our basis, in order to create a society with depth, vitality, and openness. We should consider adding provisions on the right to privacy and environmental rights, and we should study the introduction of a unicameral system and the ideal form of local autonomy, including the do-shu system.
>> In the area of peace and security, we need to squarely face the changes that have occurred in the international community, including the North Korean question, and to bear in mind that the world is watching to see what international contributions Japan will make. We should revise Article 9 and give the Self-Defense Forces the status of an organization that carries out defense and international cooperation work, and we should state clearly in the Constitution that Japan intends to make international contributions centered on humanitarian reconstruction assistance.
ITO Kosuke (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Each party has a different position on constitutional revision; ours favors creating a new Constitution. We should get out from under the spell of World War II and enact a constitution in which we can have confidence and pride.
>> The security debate has long revolved around situations that have a major influence on the peace and security of Japan, but in a new Constitution we should envision the peace and security of the whole world, not Japan alone, and state clearly that Japan will play a role even if it takes us to the other side of the globe.
>> I do not think that we should rigorously set limits on participation in multinational forces and the exercise of the right of collective self-defense, but as a check we should make sure that we have a voice in the United Nations. We should create conditions that enable Japan to cooperate in every way when the global community works together to maintain world peace and order and to provide humanitarian assistance.
YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> In contrast to the Meiji Constitution, in the Constitution of Japan, Japanese tradition and culture were all but ignored by the GHQ. As a result, there is no link between our heritage and the present and future. In the field of education, in particular, there is a pervasive ideology of individualism which has produced a widespread attitude of "anything goes." This is leading to the decline of the spiritual culture which once taught us to contribute actively to society and be considerate toward others.
>> The dignity of the individual is underpinned by the essentially social nature of human beings, and we must recognize anew that it is communal groups such as the family, and, by extension, the international community, that form the basis of the public sphere.
>> While we should also further the universal values of humankind, such as the three great constitutional principles, I would like us to discuss the Constitution based on the spiritual culture that has been developed during our nation's history, in other words, the values and the moral sense proper to Japan.
>> In addition to its legal aspect, i.e., the democratic control of state power typical of modern constitutionalism, the Constitution has another aspect as a set of norms for the conduct of the people. In our debate, we should also take into account the influence that this aspect has on the spirit of the Japanese people and the shaping of society.
>> With regard to what form local self-government should take, including the possibility of adopting a do-shu system, the Constitution should provide for, among other things, granting local authorities the right to levy independent taxes and ensuring that they have independent revenue sources, within the limits of the law; the right of self-determination and the principle of self-responsibility; and the principle of subsidiarity. In establishing these provisions, we should place importance on the community, which is the ultimate starting point of self-government, and make its significance clear in the Constitution.
SUZUKI Katsumasa (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The comments by party leaders on the occasion of Constitution Day revealed widely divergent positions, and I have the feeling that pulling the debate in this Commission together will not be an easy task. I feel that we should go about it from the point of view of the public, proceeding in such a way that we are not unduly restricted by party positions.
>> In view of the disconnect with reality that has emerged since the Constitution was enacted, I think that we should make express provision for the importance of the family as the foundation of society, the question of bioethics, the role of the Diet, and the basic principles of local public finances.
KUSUDA Daizo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Some politicians may attribute low electoral turnouts to a failure on the part of the public to appreciate the importance of their rights, but I think that politics itself is responsible for the fact that many people do not vote.
>> To ensure that constitutional amendments are not forced through by dint of the numerical strength of the ruling parties, as often happens with important bills, I think we should be cautious about relaxing the requirement that, for initiation, a constitutional amendment must have the support of "two-thirds or more of all the members of each House."
>> In the case of the requirement that, once initiated, a proposed amendment must obtain "the affirmative vote of a majority of all votes cast thereon" in a national referendum, perhaps it would be too strict to require a majority of the total population, but we need to weigh carefully whether a majority of valid votes is good enough, even if there is a low turnout at the polls.
MORIOKA Masahiro (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I think we should reach a conclusion without delay on reforms of the Imperial Household Agency and Imperial Household and on the question of female succession to the throne. But the Emperor system has played a very great role in shaping Japanese identity, and we should maintain it in a way that takes history into account.
>> I am not opposed to female succession, but it is not a matter of simply amending Article 1 of the Imperial Household Law on the grounds of the equality of the sexes stipulated in Article 14 of the Constitution. If we are to recognize female Emperors, we will have to consider whether female succession should be limited to females in the male line as an exceptional case, or whether we should also recognize succession in the female line.
>> In some European royal families males take precedence, in others it is the firstborn child. But we should devise a solution to the question of succession based on Japan's own traditions. If we recognize female succession, we will need to decide without delay such matters as the status of a female Emperor's spouse, and the age from which a female heir to the throne should be taught the things that a future Emperor needs to learn.
IWANAGA Mineichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I am very concerned about the fact that, compared with other nationalities, the patriotism of the Japanese is wavering. It is necessary that the people be properly conscious of their responsibilities to the nation.
>> Because a constitution sets forth the vision of the nation to which its people should aspire, the new Constitution should set forth a vision with dignity, a vision of which anyone could be proud and which will have the respect of the international community, and, at the same time, a vision that will inspire a love of country.
>> I think we should state explicitly in the Constitution that property rights are fundamental to the conduct of social life, but that, at the same time, regarding the accompanying responsibilities and duties, ownership rights are restricted where they conflict with the public welfare. "The public welfare" would be defined in this case as "sharing limited resources and using them effectively for the maximum possible benefit of society."
>> With regard to Article 9, we should set our thinking in order on such matters as the possession of war potential for purposes of self-defense, the rights of individual and collective self-defense, civilian control by the Prime Minister, states of emergency, human security, and regional security, and make explicit provision for them in the Constitution. The provisions should be readily understandable by the public.
>> Food and energy security are also questions of the highest importance to the survival of the nation and the people.
AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)
>> There is a lively controversy over revision of the Constitution, both within this Commission and among the public. We need to sort out the problems further, however, as some of them can be addressed by means of administrative reforms or at the level of interpretation, without revising the text.
>> As I foresee difficulty in gaining the public's consent to changing the Constitution as a whole, personally, I am considering the case for "phased constitutional reforms," i.e., carrying out reforms starting with those items for which consent can be readily obtained, while giving even greater depth to the three great constitutional principles.
>> Because Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 9 can be interpreted in different ways, the New Komeito is discussing the idea of establishing a third paragraph and defining the meaning of Paragraph 2 beyond a doubt. On the other hand, there are also positive evaluations of the role played by the existing Article 9.
>> Because international cooperation is a topic that goes beyond the scope of Article 9, we should add new provisions thereon.
KURATA Masatoshi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I take a positive view of the fact that a system of public defenders at the suspect stage and a system of lay judges were introduced as part of recent judicial reforms in the area of criminal procedures, but we should explicitly stipulate in the Constitution the rights of persons at the witness stage to retain counsel and have counsel present during questioning. Also, defendants should have the right to choose to be tried before professional judges only.
>> While firmly maintaining the renunciation of war as a sovereign right of the nation, we should make explicit provision in the Constitution for the exercise of the right of collective self-defense within regional limits. Sanctions under collective security are necessary, and we should establish constitutional provisions permitting a partial transfer of sovereignty to make it possible to participate in such measures under a united security structure. Also, while maintaining its pacifist principles, Japan should make efforts toward the creation of a UN force for policing operations and other measures to strengthen the United Nations.
NAKATANI Gen (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> With regard to security, there is a tendency to think that as long as Japan is at peace, that is good enough, but in the new Constitution we should make it clear that Japan will contribute actively to international peace, acting jointly with other nations that share our values such as freedom and democracy. In making this commitment, we should extend to our international relations our fundamental view of the public sphere, that is, the idea that one should respect the lives and dignity of others and help create a just society.
>> Even under an exclusively defensive posture, we should make it possible for Japan to respond to international terrorism and guerrilla actions without imposing regional limits.
>> Japan already has a record of joint action with multinational forces, having sent the Self-Defense Forces to the Indian Ocean and Iraq since the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001. Thus, Prime Minister KOIZUMI's recent statement about participating in multinational forces did not mark a change in Japan's response. However, the ambiguous explanations given under the existing Constitution cause confusion in the field and can only gain the public's understanding up to a point. We should make provision in the Constitution for Japan's role and responsibilities in humanitarian assistance work and international contribution operations, so that members of the Self-Defense Forces can act confidently and with a true sense of mission.
>> We should provide a basis in the Constitution for the rights of individual and collective self-defense, participation in military sanctions under regional security or collective security, and participation in international peacekeeping operations.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> It is essential to conduct research on the process by which the Constitution was enacted if we are to fully appreciate the richness of its contents. That process included ample debate on issues like popular sovereignty, the relationship between Article 9 and the UN Charter, and the right to a minimum standard of living set forth in Article 25, and I therefore question the view that the Constitution was "imposed." In fact, I think there was an attempt to impose the case for constitutional revision, as arguments for revision came from the United States during the process of postwar rearmament.
>> Since the war, in response to social changes and development, legislative and other measures have been taken to give force to constitutional principles. At the same time, the political realities have become divorced from constitutional principles due to such measures as rearmament, creation of the Self-Defense Forces, and their dispatch overseas. We should bring the realities closer to the Constitution.
MATSUNO Hirokazu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The Preamble sets forth (a) matters to be realized between the government and the people, such as popular sovereignty and fundamental human rights, and (b) the role that Japan should play in the world, such as the preservation of peace and the banishment of tyranny and slavery. The matters under (a) are embodied in concrete provisions, but those under (b) are not, and concrete action is difficult because the question of Article 9 has not been put in order.
>> According to one view, the Constitution provides for two kinds of human rights: those to be realized at the domestic level and those to be achieved at the global level. Of course, we must respect the sovereignty, traditions, and values of independent states, but in the Preamble we should declare in specific terms the mission that Japan should perform, for example, its responsibilities toward the global environment.
HIRAI Takuya (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The people feel that they are at an impasse, that the world never changes; they are resigned to accepting not only the Constitution but the bureaucracy and regulation. We should pursue the debate on constitutional revision with the idea of changing the public's attitude to an expectation of change and encouraging more of a sense of initiative on their part.
>> A constitution with Article 9 and a strict amendment procedure was enacted to ensure that Japan would never again wage war. Japan has prospered since the war by managing this Constitution, but even today there is a lingering mistrust of our own conduct of national affairs and also a tendency to distrust the people, i.e., a reluctance to recognize the free actions of individuals. We should enable the people to find inspiration in the Constitution.
>> We should lay out the constitutional amendment process before the people and the international community, in part so as to win their trust in this nation. I believe that we should revise the Constitution, not because it is behind the times, but more as a responsibility to the generations to come.
FURUYA Keiji (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> In the four years since this Commission was established, we have pursued a wide-ranging debate, and I think that, to a certain extent, there are areas on which we can agree, such as firmly maintaining the renunciation of wars of aggression. I suggest that the time has come to determine a course of action in regard to those areas.
>> Based on the cumulative discussions in this Commission, as a responsibility of the legislature we should reorganize the Commission into a body empowered to introduce bills, and we should incorporate a statement to that effect in the final report.
>> We should put the necessary legislation in place without delay, including a National Referendum Law to give concrete effect to Article 96.
SHIBAYAMA Masahiko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> We should establish a standing committee to discuss which matters require constitutional amendments, and those areas on which we are able to agree should then be placed on the table for amendment.
>> We should relax the requirement for initiating a constitutional amendment, making it a simple majority of the members of both Houses. The argument that we should be cautious about relaxing this requirement because of the danger of forced passage is misplaced since, after it is initiated, a proposed amendment must still obtain the affirmative vote of a majority of the people.
>> We should consider making more explicit provision for the public sphere and the duties of the people; at the same time, we should also incorporate substantial provisions on respect for others and for society.
MASHIKO Teruhiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> I suggest that it is possible to distinguish between those areas of contention on which the parties' positions are reconcilable and those like Article 9 on which they are not, and to carry out phased revision of the former. Article 9, however, should be firmly upheld; this was also made clear by the comments of the speakers at Open Hearings.
>> In public opinion polls, sixty to seventy percent say they are in favor of revision, but I am doubtful whether there is a truly widespread public awareness of the Constitution.
>> With regard to the Prime Minister's announcement that the Self-Defense Forces will participate in the multinational force in Iraq, I feel that it is extremely dangerous to decide this without adequate debate in the Diet.
FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> It is much to be regretted that the debates and other work of this Commission are not widely known among the public. We should have a more active public relations program.
>> While there are still some areas in which we have not been able to hold adequate discussions and which need to be supplemented, the Commission is now entering a period in which it should set the issues in order with a view to compiling its final report. After that report is submitted, the present Commission should be made a standing committee, and we should advance to the stage of revising the Constitution.
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
>> Modern constitutions have their raison d'être in the principle of respect for the human rights of the individual, which is guaranteed by Article 13. But recent arguments for revising the Constitution give the state and the public sphere precedence over the individual. This is clearly wrong from the viewpoint of respect for human rights.
>> The basis of Article 9 is the right to live in peace which is stated in the Preamble. As I see it, this relationship expresses the fact that the renunciation of war is closely linked to the guarantee of human rights and respect for life.
>> Even if opinion polls show sixty to seventy percent of the public to be in favor of constitutional revision, we should take proper note of the fact that when it comes to Article 9, the majority are opposed to revision.
>> Some propositions would not be permissible because of their content, even if they passed through the formal amendment procedure of Article 96 and were thus constitutional in a technical sense. That is to say, I believe that it is not permissible to change the Constitution in ways that violate its ideals in light of the historical process by which it came into being and its raison d'être.
>> In my view, to relax the requirements for initiating a constitutional amendment would show a disregard for the nature of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land; it would represent an act of self-destruction by the Constitution.