First Meeting

Thursday, August 5, 2004

Meeting Agenda

Matters relating to the Constitution of Japan

1. Chairman NAKAYAMA gave an opening speech.

2. Comments were heard from political parties which had presented summaries of the issues, proposals, etc.

3. Comments were heard from representatives of each political party or group.

Representatives of the parties which had presented summaries of the issues, proposals, etc.

Representatives of each party:

Main points of comments by the parties which had presented summaries of the issues, proposals, etc.

YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party)

1. Introduction

>> In the recent elections for the House of Representatives, the Liberal Democratic Party pledged to draw up a new draft Constitution by November 2005, the fiftieth anniversary of the party's founding.

>> We have made the debate within the party accessible to the public, especially on the Internet, in order to seek their understanding and to stimulate public opinion.

2. Our basic approach to enacting a new Constitution

>> The Japan that should be envisioned in the new Constitution is a nation with dignity, worthy of the pride of every citizen and the respect of the international community. The new Constitution should clearly set forth the essentials of a nation and define the relationship between the nation and the people. I believe that, if we take this approach, love of country will grow naturally among the Japanese people.

>> In particular, the new Constitution must set a high value on three principles that have taken root in postwar Japan: the sovereignty of the people, a pacifism that ensures we will never again become an aggressor nation, and respect for fundamental human rights. These universal values of humankind must be maintained and developed further.

>> The new Constitution must be founded on values that are particular to Japan's culture (the "national character") and rooted in its history, traditions, and culture—considerations which were left out when the present Constitution was enacted under the Occupation—and also on sound conventional wisdom, such as the moral sense traditionally possessed by the Japanese. At the same time, it must be possible to find therein a statement of the identity of the Japanese nation and people.

>> The new Constitution must be suited to the new, 21st-century Japan, and it must address appropriately the issues newly facing us, such as scientific and technological progress, the falling birthrate, and the aging society. At the same time, since it is the essentially social nature of humanity that sustains the dignity of the individual, in the new Constitution the family and the community must occupy an important position as the basis of the public sphere.

3. The LDP's internal consensus regarding the present Constitution

>> The Preamble should be completely rewritten.

>> The Emperor-as-symbol system should be maintained in the future.

>> A majority of members are in favor of making explicit provision for the maintenance of war potential for purposes of self-defense. Other security-related points that should be incorporated include: (a) a statement that we place a high value on postwar Japan's achievements as a peace-loving nation and the international trust it has earned, and that we will continue to place importance on these things in the future; (b) a statement that the principle of pacifism, i.e., the principle that Japan will never again become an aggressor nation, is immutable; (c) recognition of the exercise of the rights of individual and collective self-defense; (d) the principle that supreme command is vested in the Prime Minister, and the principle of civilian control; (e) comprehensive provisions for states of emergency.

>> We should make it a basic principle that the fundamental human rights laid down by the present Constitution are values universal to humanity and that Japan will always respect them; on that basis, we should then provide for new rights and new duties in keeping with the changing times, and review any provisions that are no longer in tune with the sound common sense of the people.

>> Recognizing the great contribution of postwar democracy and popular sovereignty to the development of the Japanese nation and society, in order to fulfill these principles more fully we should further strengthen the system of policy-making at the initiative of politicians rather than bureaucrats, and we should take bold steps to streamline the process and create a system which allows political decisions to be implemented speedily in response to the changing times.

>> The bicameral system should not be maintained in its present form, as the two chambers are too similar in their powers and electoral systems. A reorganization of some kind is needed.

>> With regard to the judicial system, (a) there is strong dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court's present exercise of the power of judicial review, and (b) we should therefore consider a mechanism such as a Constitutional Court system to decide questions of constitutionality from the perspective of a third party, independent of the policy-making and executive functions of the political branch, while ensuring democratic control. In addition, (c) we should review the best way to guarantee the status of judges, and (d) we should take steps to speed up both civil and criminal trials.

>> Fiscal democracy should be reviewed with a view to giving it more substance.

>> Decentralization should be promoted further. Also, a majority of members are agreed that the basic approach and principles of decentralization should be written into the Constitution.

>> The requirements for amending the existing Constitution are fairly strict compared with other countries, and as this seems to be an impediment to timely constitutional revision, some members argued that we should take steps to relax the requirements, e.g., by changing "two thirds or more" to "a simple majority."

4. Conclusion

>> In discussing the Constitution, I believe we need a vision for the nation and a philosophy. As I see it, "respect for life" is the ultimate value in the Liberal Democratic Party's concept of the Constitution. This is congruent with Japan's traditional "national character," which values harmony and cherishes life, and it is not inconsistent with the dignity of the individual espoused by modern constitutionalism.

>> As for the proper form of Japan's international contributions, we should make active contributions after first distinguishing between those areas in which Japan should contribute actively and those in which we should restrict ourselves to a limited response, in light of the principles governing the use of force, namely, Japan's traditional respect for life and the lessons of the past.

>> I think there is broad agreement, especially in the area of security, between the Liberal Democratic Party's summary of the issues and the proposals put forward by the New Komeito and the Democratic Party of Japan.


EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

1. Introduction

>> The Democratic Party of Japan is in favor of full, free and open debate on all constitutional issues from the perspective of formulating a vision for the Japan of the 21st first century.

>> I believe that the Constitution, as the framework of the nation's structure, must set up universal principles that do not shift with changes in the world situation, but it must also be responsive and adaptable enough to cope with new challenges.

>> The Democratic Party of Japan is due to present its draft of constitutional revisions by 2006, and our Constitution Research Committee is expected to complete its constitutional proposals by the end of this year.

>> An Interim Report was drawn up to set out the results of the party's internal debate on the major constitutional issues.

2. The work of the Party's Constitution Research Committee and the basic direction of the debate, based on the Interim Report

[1] Studying the ideal form of the Constitution while envisioning a new Japan for the future, rather than conducting a debate that looks back at the past

>> The constitutional debate so far has tended to be preoccupied with past history. The government's approach of avoiding direct debate on the Constitution and instead creating a series of faits accomplis by interpreting its provisions to deal with situations as they arise leads to a loss of the public's faith in the Constitution, reducing it to a document without substance.

>> What Japanese politics needs today is not ad hoc interpretations but a constitutional debate backed by the ability to think on a grand scale.

[2] Respecting and deepening the underlying norms of the existing Constitution: popular sovereignty, respect for fundamental human rights, and pacifist principles

>> A constitution should permeate the national life deeply over time and gain acceptance as a set of social norms.

>> We intend to frame a constitution of a new type, combining three aspects: (a) a declaration to the world of a vision for the nation; (b) a statement of the will and spirit of the Japanese people, looking toward the future; (c) a framework governing the actions of the state.

[3] Clarifying the internationalism of the present Constitution

>> We will pursue a bold debate that takes into account world trends in the 21st century, including the EU's concepts of "transfer of sovereignty" and "pooled sovereignty."

>> The principle of international cooperation is a key part of the spirit of the present Constitution, and we intend to promote it further and to make Japan a partner in actions taken by the international community.

>> Security should not be defined in self-contained terms within the framework of a single nation; instead, we should consider making cooperation with the international community a guiding principle in all areas.

>> Specifically, instead of leaving the overseas dispatch of the Self-Defense Forces to gradually become a fait accompli, (a) we will make it clear that the principle of international cooperation allows Japan to contribute actively to the UN's collective security operations, and (b) we will make a commitment to exercise the right of self-defense solely as part of an exclusively defensive posture.

[4] Two-tiered reforms of Japan's system of government

(a) Fully realizing popular sovereignty: seeking mechanisms to reflect the popular will freely and honestly in every sphere
>> Among other measures, we will promote public participation in judicial reforms, study a national referendum system, and improve the ombudsman system.

(b) Ensuring that the initiative is taken by politicians in the Cabinet and by the Prime Minister in the government
>> We should take steps to clarify the Cabinet's executive powers, review the relationship between politicians and the bureaucracy, and convert to a system which will enable us to eliminate the evils of pork-barrel politics.

[5] Creating a decentralized society directly linked to our vision for the nation

>> In the years to come, Japan should endeavor to become a self-sufficient society that places its trust in the energy of the people. This can only be achieved by promoting free corporate activity in the market and by encouraging residents in the community to develop a capacity for self-determination.

>> Specifically, we should make the "principle of local autonomy" more concrete by establishing in the Constitution: (a) the equality of the central and local governments, (b) the principle of subsidiarity, and (c) the power to levy independent taxes.

[6] Discussing human rights from two perspectives

(a) The international perspective

>> Constitutional guarantees of human rights must attain a level that meets the standards of the international community. We will make explicit provision for environmental rights, the right to know, and the right of self-determination, among others. (b) The domestic perspective

>> To protect the dignity of the individual, we will create a body for the guarantee and redress of human rights whose status will be established in the Constitution, e.g., a Human Rights Commission as an independent, third-party agency.

[7] Reflecting on the lack of concern in postwar politics for putting the Constitution into practice in the life of the nation

>> Concretely, two points we need to examine critically are: (a) the inadequate functioning of judicial review in the justice system; (b) the failure to overcome the traditional mentality of deferring to authority, which continues to put the government first and the lives and rights of the people second.

>> Based on this critical reflection, we should study measures such as creating a Constitutional Court, in order to establish the rule of law under the protection of the guarantee of human rights and the constitutional order.

3. Conclusion

>> In the constitutional debate, the important thing is that the ideal form of the future Constitution should be determined on the basis of a national debate among people in every walk of life.

>> We trust that the discussions in this Commission and in our party's Constitution Research Committee will furnish a basis for the national debate.


OTA Akihiro (New Komeito)

1. Introduction

>> New Komeito is in favor of adding to the Constitution, i.e., adding new human rights while firmly maintaining the three basic constitutional principles of popular sovereignty, pacifist principles, and the guarantee of fundamental human rights. In considering the Constitution, a debate oriented toward the future is essential. New Komeito has pursued in-depth discussions from the viewpoints of a people's constitution, a peace constitution, a human rights constitution, and an environmental constitution. I will briefly introduce the debate here.

2. Outline of the debate within the New Komeito

>> Some members favored rewriting the Preamble, on the grounds that it too closely reflects the historical background after Japan's defeat in the war and that its language is not natural Japanese, while others argued that the three constitutional principles should be clearly stated in the Preamble. It was also suggested that in rewriting the Preamble, we should set forth our ideals concerning international contributions and human security. It was further suggested that there is a need for a statement of Japanese identity that everyone can share.

>> The Emperor-as-symbol system should be maintained. Some members would be willing for the Emperor to have the title "head of state," but there was a strong sentiment that it would be better not to give the Emperor substantial powers involving authority over the conduct of state affairs. There was no objection to the existing definition of "acts in matters of state." The question of female succession was left to be debated in relation to revision of the Imperial Household Law, but as a general approach we intend to consider this question favorably.

>> The debate has not reversed the party's position that Article 9 should be firmly upheld. Some members favor explicitly stating that Japan can exercise the right of individual self-defense, but the majority hold that we should not recognize the exercise of the right of collective self-defense. Some members argued that we should make explicit provision for the Self-Defense Forces, while others thought this unnecessary since they are already accepted as constitutional. It was argued that collective security should be recognized, but some felt that even in that case, the use of force should not be recognized and that this issue should be handled at the level of individual laws. It was suggested that explicit provision should be made for international contributions.

>> With regard to the rights and duties of the people, it was argued that new human rights such as environmental rights and the right to privacy should be set forth in a more positive way. Although it is necessary to consider this question carefully to avoid "rights inflation," in terms of a future-oriented constitutional debate, it can be said that providing explicitly for new rights in the Constitution will contribute to the guarantee of human rights. Another noteworthy point is the suggestion that the Constitution, which presently has "rights" and "duties" as its basis, should include the concept of "responsibilities."

>> With regard to the Diet, the consensus was that the bicameral system should be retained. On that basis, it was agreed that the division of roles between the two chambers needs to be clarified and that, in particular, the position of the House of Councillors as the seat of conscience and reconsideration needs to be clearly established.

>> Members called for strengthening the Cabinet's functions further and transforming the political system so that the initiative rests with politicians rather than bureaucrats. We should endeavor to strengthen the Cabinet's functions as a consultative body, rather than the Prime Minister's individual leadership role. There was little support for popular election of the Prime Minister.

>> With regard to the administration of justice, members argued for improving the present state of the Supreme Court, which leans toward judicial passivism, but saw no need to create a Constitutional Court. The importance of popular participation in the administration of justice was also noted.

>> In the area of public finances, some members saw a need to secure independent revenue sources for local governments, and some favored stipulating the right to levy independent taxes in the Constitution. It was also suggested that the relationship between subsidies for private schools and the Constitution should be studied in view of the importance of this issue.

>> The provisions concerning local autonomy should be made stronger and clearer. It is important to strengthen the functions of the basic units of self-government. A federal system was viewed unfavorably.

>> The majority view was that the constitutional amendment clause is appropriate as it stands, given the serious nature of constitutional revision.

>> Members did not favor stipulating that the people have an obligation to respect and uphold the Constitution.

Comments from representatives of each party (in order of presentation)

KONDO Motohiko (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> As we face real threats such as those associated with the war on terror of recent years or the North Korean nuclear issue, it is government's task to carry out risk management and reassure the public by putting in place a complete defense structure that can protect their lives and property and the nation's sovereignty in an emergency. To that end, it is necessary to state explicitly in the Constitution, the nation's basic law, that Japan possesses the right of self-defense, and to clarify the status of the Self-Defense Forces as the agent by which we exercise that right.

>> It is said that, in the present era, international contributions based on human security are necessary. Human security has two aspects: (1) human empowerment, in which the government, NGOs, and international agencies cooperate to enable every individual to fulfill his or her rich potential, and (2) the support systems that make human empowerment possible, for example by maintaining public order, including the provision of military forces. When this latter aspect is taken into consideration, revision of the Constitution is essential to promote international contributions in terms of human security.

>> The Liberal Democratic Party's summary of the issues takes a very clear position on security, namely, the stance of risk management, but the security-related statements by both the Democratic Party of Japan and the New Komeito seem to leave many points unclear, particularly in relation to collective security.

>> Nevertheless, despite some differences in our views, I believe that our three parties agree in our overall policies and basic approaches—for example, all of us are committed to maintaining the three constitutional principles—and it can be said that a common understanding on the Constitution is taking shape among parties that hold two-thirds or more of the number of Diet seats, which is the requirement for initiating a constitutional amendment. This is a significant development. Next year, this Commission is due to produce its final report, and in the months ahead it will be important both to draw opinions together on each issue within the separate parties, and to reconcile opinions among them.

>> A procedural law for constitutional amendments should be drawn up without delay. This point has also been discussed among the ruling parties.


YAMAHANA Ikuo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

>> Listening to the views of the Liberal Democratic Party and the New Komeito, I noted areas where I share their views, but I also felt that their stance toward the Constitution differs in some ways from that of the Democratic Party of Japan.

>> The Liberal Democratic Party's spokesperson stated that the present Constitution tends too strongly toward individualism, but we must distinguish between individualism and self-interest, and it should also be noted that the present Constitution contains prohibitions on the abuse of rights, for example, in Articles 12 and 13.

>> Concerning the New Komeito's view that we should stipulate the environment to be "the responsibility of the state," we too think that it is worth studying the idea of stipulating a duty or responsibility of the state in this regard, because even though we speak of environmental rights as a new human right, it is doubtful whether they can be defined as a constitutional right in terms that permit a unique interpretation, for example, with regard to the holder of the rights and their legal efficacy.

>> The greatest problem regarding security is the erosion of the Constitution's substance. We must not allow the normative value of the Constitution to be lessened by the government's interpreting it as the occasion demands. What we must do is establish a basic law whose structure does not permit arbitrary interpretation by state power.

>> With regard to placing security and international cooperation on a new footing, I believe that, instead of unquestioning commitment to the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, in our diplomacy and security policy we should think about a role for Japan in Asia appropriate to the 21st century, and in our international cooperation we should play an active role in an international order centered on the United Nations. To achieve those goals, we must be ready to take on the challenge of restructuring the Constitution from a global perspective; for example, we could consider a transfer of sovereignty like that seen in the evolution of the EU.

>> The previous speaker described the DPJ's security policy as unclear. In response, let me say that, in the Constitution, (a) we will clarify the status of collective security operations legitimized by resolutions of the UN Security Council or General Assembly, and (b) we will make explicit provision for the "limited right of self-defense" stipulated in the UN Charter.

>> To ensure the rule of law, we should consider creating a Constitutional Court to protect the value of constitutional norms.


AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

>> At the party's November 2002 national convention, New Komeito decided to aim for "constitutional reform through additional provisions while protecting the Constitution." In other words, we take the basic stance of declaring immutable the three constitutional principles of popular sovereignty, fundamental human rights, and permanent renunciation of war, and firmly maintaining Article 9; on that basis, we will then add new provisions attuned to the changing times, establishing new human rights such as environmental rights and privacy rights, and clearly stipulating the decentralization of power. Since deciding this policy, the party has continued its internal debate.

>> While there is consensus in the party on maintaining Paragraph 1 of Article 9 as it stands, there is a divergence of opinion on other related points, with some members holding that there is no need to revise Paragraph 2, and others contending that a third paragraph should be created to establish a clear basis for the existence of the Self-Defense Forces. However, the dominant view is that, even if a third paragraph were added, we should maintain an exclusively defensive posture and should not recognize the right of collective self-defense.

>> Some members of the party are in favor of recognizing collective security. However, there is a strong belief that, even if we were to do so, we should avoid the direct use of force and limit our participation to rear-area support in nonmilitary sectors.

>> There is a consensus that we should actively add provisions to the Preamble and elsewhere concerning international contributions and international cooperation activities such as peacekeeping operations.

>> In intraparty discussions, there is a strong consensus that we must not detract from the message that Article 9 has been sending to the world; at the same time, as a member of the ruling coalition, New Komeito feels that we should gain maximum effectiveness from actions based on the interpretation of the Article developed in the past by the Japanese government.

>> To change Article 9 completely would have an immeasurably great impact, both at home and abroad, but not to change it at all would also pose problems. Thus, some members are in favor of making certain additions to Article 9 that would confirm the present situation, but the debate has not gone so far as to overturn the party's position that we should uphold the existing Article 9.


YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)

>> This Commission was established with the declaration, in Article 1 of the Regulations of the Research Commission on the Constitution of the House of Representatives, that it "shall conduct broad and comprehensive research on the Constitution of Japan." Thus, it is a departure from the Commission's stated purpose to treat statements whose purpose is constitutional revision as a subject of its research, as has been done today with regard to the summary of issues and the proposals presented by the Liberal Democratic Party, the Democratic Party of Japan, and the New Komeito.

>> The Japanese Communist Party takes the position of protecting the Constitution and putting it into practice, not revising it.

>> In Article 9, we see the end point of a groundbreaking pursuit of pacifist principles. The Article also represents the essence of constitutionalism, that is to say, the limitation of state power.

>> The basic concept of Article 9, which was confirmed at the session of the constitutional assembly, is that Japan will maintain consistently a nonmilitary stance, even when taking part in UN-sponsored operations and when making contributions to peace. Participation in multinational forces and the use of force overseas cannot be recognized under Article 9, no matter what principle is put forward to justify them. I would also like to point out that the UN Charter does not contain any provisions with wording as vague as "collective security operations legitimized by resolutions of the UN General Assembly."

>> In legislation such as the Law Concerning Measures to Deal with Situations in Areas Surrounding Japan, the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law, and the Special Measures Law for Iraq, the government has had to shore up its position by making frequent use of terms such as "rear-area support" and "noncombat zones," which are meaningless in the world at large. The plain fact is that the existence of Article 9 has acted as a brake on the use of force overseas by the Self-Defense Forces and has created the foundations for Japan to gain the trust of the other peoples of Asia.

>> It is the United States that is demanding that we revise Article 9 and approve the right of collective self-defense, among other changes. Such changes would result in Japan's becoming a nation that can make war. In opinion polls, a majority of the public opposes revision. Few of the Japanese people are seeking revision of Article 9, nor do they want Japan to become a country that can wage war.

>> Only by firmly maintaining Article 9 as a tenet of its politics and society can Japan occupy an honorable position in the international community and contribute to world peace.


DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)

>> The conduct of today's session of the Commission, which has taken up three parties' summaries of the issues and proposals whose intent is to revise the Constitution, is problematic in light of (a) the aims of this Commission as laid down in Article 1 of the Regulations of the Research Commission on the Constitution of the House of Representatives, and (b) the understanding reached among the parties at the July 6, 1999 executive meeting of the House of Representatives Committee on Rules and Administration, which included an agreement that this Commission would not have the power to introduce bills. It is also problematic given that the final report to be submitted to the Speaker should be fair and impartial. Why were presentations from only these three parties taken up at this session? I wish to state my opposition to the way in which today's session of the Commission has been conducted.

(To Chairman NAKAYAMA)

>> Were the summary of the issues and the proposals that were presented to this session taken up as a subject of the Commission's research, or should they be regarded merely as reference materials?

> NAKAYAMA Taro, Chairman

>> I am certainly aware that when this Commission was created, it was agreed that it would not have the power to introduce bills. Since the discussions taking place within the parties have not yet reached firm conclusions and their contents were reaching the public only through media reports, I considered that placing statements from the parties on the official record, as we have done today, would provide a useful source of information for the future.