Meeting Agenda
Matters relating to the Constitution of Japan (national referendum system)
Free discussion was held among the members on the above topic.
Main points of initial round of comments by representatives of each party
YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Article 96 makes amending the Constitution a joint act of the Diet (as the body that represents the people) and the people themselves (as holders of the right to enact a constitution). It thus strikes a balance between parliamentary democracy and direct democracy. Another system that incorporates direct democracy in a similar way is popular review of the appointment of Supreme Court justices, which is laid down in Article 79.
>> A law on national referendums for constitutional amendments is the most important piece of legislation accompanying the Constitution; strictly speaking, such a law should have been enacted at the same time as the Constitution itself. Sixty years later, we still have no national referendum system. To claim that there was never a need to put the legislation in place because there was no realistic prospect of the Constitution being revised is an insult to the principle of popular sovereignty.
>> Today, four and a half years after Research Commissions on the Constitution were established in both Houses of the Diet, debate on revising the Constitution has become active, and there is an urgent need to take preparatory steps such as creating a body in the Diet to review proposed constitutional amendments, and enacting the relevant legislation.
>> A working group of the Coalition Council on a National Referendum Law and Related Measures has studied referendums on constitutional amendments in other countries, and their findings indicate that the National Referendum Bill drafted in 2001 by the Inter-Party Parliamentary Group for Research on the Constitution is along exactly the right lines.
>> Matters to be taken into account in drawing up a National Referendum Bill include: (a) whether to hold referendums at the same time as national elections; (b) who should be eligible to vote in national elections and referendums; and (c) how to publicize the aims and contents of proposed amendments that are put to the vote.
>> The Constitution stipulates a parliamentary system and provides for only limited institutions of a direct-democracy type. While this structure should be maintained, at the local government level there are quite a few decisions which it is appropriate to entrust to local residents, whose interests are directly at stake. It is well worth considering the introduction of a system of residents' referendums, with the proviso that they should be used to assist policy-making by looking at the effects of specific measures.
TANAKA Makiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The existing Constitution contains three provisions for institutions of a direct-democracy type: (a) Article 96 on constitutional amendments; (b) Article 95 on special laws applicable to only one local public entity; (c) Article 79 on popular review of the appointments of Supreme Court justices. The first two are referendums, which function in a positive way, and the third is a recall system, which functions in a negative way.
>> There has been much discussion of the possibility of holding referendums on various issues, such as capital punishment or recognizing brain death as the end of life. It must be realized, however, that a referendum system has its drawbacks; in particular, (a) it makes it difficult to achieve consistent policies; (b) it tends to encourage overheated polemics and media commentary; (c) minority views tend not to get a fair hearing.
>> Nevertheless, if we are to keep pace with the world in which we live, namely, a rapidly changing environment marked by scientific and technological progress and the advent of an information society, I believe we should introduce a referendum system, which would complement parliamentary democracy.
>> While recognizing that referendums have their drawbacks, we should work toward realizing a referendum system by addressing the various practical and technical questions involved in order to guarantee that popular opinion is reflected accurately.
OTA Akihiro (New Komeito)
>> It has long been my position that, as the Constitution should look to the future, we should discuss it along the lines of "a people's constitution," "a human rights constitution," and "an environmental constitution." Also, to those who object that the present Constitution talks only of rights and barely mentions duties, my answer is that we should take as a given the underlying structure of the present Constitution, that is, an opposition between the state and the individual, and on that basis we should then discuss the concept of "responsibilities." Further, I think that in the 21st century we should be aware of four key points: information technology, the genome, the environment, and citizen participation. The first three are being discussed under the heading of "new human rights." There has not been enough discussion of the fourth, citizen participation, but this is a very important question, and our approach to it should include looking at how to create "symbiosis" and "mutual aid," including the work of NPOs and NGOs, and volunteer work in general.
>> With regard to Article 96, Paragraph 2, the New Komeito's position of "adding to the Constitution" is a very realistic approach, given that (a) the existing Constitution is of the highest quality and has gained popular acceptance; (b) a number of other countries take the approach of strengthening their constitutions to meet the needs of the times; (c) the phrase "as an integral part of this Constitution" in Paragraph 2 is based on the amendment method used in the U.S. Constitution.
>> With regard to Article 96, Paragraph 1, some people say that the requirements for initiating an amendment in the Diet are too strict, but they are in fact reasonable, considering that constitutional revision is a matter of great importance. However, we need to conduct an in-depth debate on national referendums, looking at other countries' systems and examples of how they work.
>> The question of how to make the contents of proposed constitutional amendments known to the public is closely bound up with the question of how amendments should be initiated by the Diet. We need to take these points into account in our debate with a view to enacting procedural legislation, including a revision of the Diet Law. We also need to study the ideas under consideration for a body to succeed this Commission.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> Referendums are one of several democratic institutions for expressing the will of the sovereign people directly. Many countries have adopted such systems, but in each case the elements—such as what issues are voted on in referendums and at whose initiative—are put together differently, so that each system reflects the country's history and political conditions. The Constitution of Japan, while founded on parliamentary democracy, also provides for direct democracy in Articles 96, 95, and 79; it gives substance to popular sovereignty by combining the two.
>> In the absence of any demand that the Constitution be changed or any concrete consensus on changing it, putting in place a National Referendum Law for constitutional amendments is simply not an issue. To enact a National Referendum Law for the purpose of putting constitutional revision on the political agenda would be against the wishes of the public.
>> Initially, Article 95 was quite fruitful; for example, fifteen special laws applicable to only one local public entity were enacted in the first few years after the Constitution entered into force. But there have been none since 1951. This is because Article 95 has been neglected, even though there were many cases where it should have been applied, such as the revision of the Law on Special Measures for Land Expropriation for U.S. Forces in Japan in 1997. Constitutional scholars have strongly criticized this neglect as an evasion of the article.
>> The growing movement toward holding residents' referendums based on local ordinances is a very meaningful reflection of residents' wishes and demands in local government. The Japanese Communist Party has proposed an outline Residents' Referendum Bill. It is also very important at the national government level to shed light on the meaning of residents' referendums.
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
>> Modern states are founded on indirect democracy, in which the will of the people is realized through a parliamentary assembly; at the same time, they also have some institutions based on direct democracy, such as residents' referendums. The two are complementary, not mutually exclusive.
>> Residents' referendums are based on ordinances or local regulations, which the Constitution states shall be enacted "within law," and thus we can say that laws are needed in order to put the Constitution into practice by promoting local self-government and resident self-government. The Diet must take responsibility and enact laws drafted by its Members, not by the Cabinet.
>> A national referendum is necessary before the Constitution can be amended because sovereignty and the power to enact a constitution belong to the people. Even the conditions for holding a referendum are not yet in place, since the Diet, which initiates amendments, does not currently reflect public opinion and can hardly be said to have the public's trust, which is a necessary condition of the system.
Comments after the first round
EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> In the system now taking shape, in which there are two major parties and voters choose between them based on detailed policy manifestoes, one can foresee situations where some people might end up having to vote for a party whose platform they do not support in its entirety. We should make full use of referendums as a way of ironing out any resulting discrepancies between the program of the majority party in the Diet and the wishes of the people.
>> We need to create a mechanism such as a Constitutional Court to guarantee the human rights of the minority and safeguard them from the risks that even a form of direct democracy may pose.
>> Referendums on constitutional amendments should not be held at the same time as national elections, because the popular will that is exercised in choosing between two parties is not the same as the popular will that is exercised in amending the Constitution.
>> It is important to have a wide-ranging popular debate before a referendum on a constitutional amendment, and we should therefore take care not to impose the kind of strict restrictions seen in the Public Offices Election Law, which could limit this activity.
SHIBAYAMA Masahiko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> In specialized fields such as treaties and taxation, Diet Members need to study the issues in an ongoing and systematic way. Thus, it is not appropriate to entrust decisions of this kind to voters in a referendum, as they do not have the opportunity for such study.
(In connection with the comments by Mr. EDANO)
>> The choice made by the public in an election, after the parties
have made campaign promises, has a weight that cannot be ignored. I question
whether that important choice can be swayed by means of a referendum.
HANASHI Yasuhiro (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> In the Meiji Constitution, the right to enact a constitution belonged to the Emperor. National referendums on constitutional amendments are an institution created in the Constitution of Japan in order to transfer this right to the people.
>> If a party platform is a body of policy with a unified philosophy, and in an electoral contest each party's platform is a package deal, I cannot agree to taking individual policies that were published in a party's manifesto and submitting them to a referendum.
>> Various opinion polls show that sixty percent of the Japanese people think the Constitution should be revised. This being the case, to fail to establish a procedure for amending the Constitution would be a dereliction of duty on the part of the Diet. It is important to prepare a referendum system and thus take the discussion with the public to a deeper level.
SAKAMOTO Goji (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> We will need to establish a well-designed system in order to guard against the kind of situation where, after a referendum on a constitutional amendment, the results are not finalized for years because of a flood of lawsuits attempting to invalidate the vote, or similar problems.
EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
(In connection with the comments by Mr. HANASHI)
>> I recognize that a party platform is a unified body of policy, but I think that some parts of a platform are more essential than others; that is to say, some parts are directly linked to the party's ideals and philosophy, while others are more peripheral. It seems to me that, on occasion, voters might have room for second thoughts on a less essential part of the platform. On issues of this kind, surely it would be acceptable to ask the public their opinion in a referendum.
(Comment)
>> If we introduce national referendums, it should be a precondition that the Diet will decide autonomously which issues are to be put to the vote.
YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> In enacting a National Referendum Law for constitutional amendments, it is important to set rules to ensure that referendums are conducted fairly and to determine how any flaws will be dealt with. It is essential that each party carry on an in-depth debate on these matters in advance.
>> The existing Constitution limits referendums at the national level to those relating to constitutional amendments and popular review of Supreme Court justices. It will therefore be necessary to revise the Constitution if we introduce referendums on other matters, even if they are advisory in nature.
YAMAHANA Ikuo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> If we introduce a new referendum system, it should be advisory in nature and should cover those issues on which it is desirable to obtain the opinion of the public in general.
>> Referendums could also be used to seek public opinion on controversial issues which arise after an election and which are not suited to party-line voting.
TSUJI Megumu (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
(In connection with the comments by Mr. HANASHI)
>> Opinion polls take a piecemeal approach, and they are also influenced by how the questions are framed. Thus, even if the polls show that sixty percent of the public favor revision, it does not therefore follow that we should revise the Constitution. Moreover, in terms of the political process, the debate cannot be said to be mature at the present stage.
(In connection with the comments by Mr. YASUOKA)
>> The Liberal Democratic Party seems to be afraid of introducing institutions of a direct-democracy type; this can be seen in comments like "the present moves to strengthen resident self-government are not desirable; it is better to strengthen self-government by local entities." However, in light of the increasing diversity of the Japanese people's values, we should consider introducing systems of direct democracy, such as national referendums, to reflect a wide variety of opinions in politics.
(Comment)
>> The Liberal Democratic Party seems to be arguing for measures such as including a statement of the national character in the Preamble and adding provisions on duties, but surely these are a departure from constitutionalism.
NAGAOKA Yoji (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> It is important to ask whether the procedure for amending the Constitution is realistic. The procedure stipulated in the existing Constitution is not realistic, since it means that if just one-third of the Members of either House oppose an amendment it cannot be initiated.
>> Accordingly, debate on revising the amendment procedure should be our first priority.
>> Personally, I think that the following conditions should be sufficient for amending the Constitution: an amendment shall be initiated by a majority vote of the Diet, with at least two-thirds of all Members of both Houses present, and then submitted to the people for ratification in a referendum. Further, we should put in place the legislation for national referendums without delay.
KATO Katsunobu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> There was recently a case where a majority of residents voted against a proposed municipal merger in a referendum, and yet, in the election that followed, the pro-merger candidate was re-elected mayor. In such cases, more weight should be given to the mayor's campaign pledges and decisions; otherwise, it only invites needless confusion.
>> I think that if general issues are to be put to the vote in national or residents' referendums, it is meaningful to seek public opinion only if there has first been a thorough debate on the question.
>> With regard to constitutional amendment procedures, I think we need to put concrete legislation in place without delay and, at the same time, relax the requirements.
OIDE Akira (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Japan has made indirect democracy central to its system of government, but the fact that sovereignty resides with the people means that we should reflect the will of the people in government as far as possible. From that point of view, I suggest that national referendums of an advisory type are a valid approach.
HANASHI Yasuhiro (Liberal Democratic Party)
(In connection with the comments by Mr. TSUJI)
>> Of course, I am aware that the sixty percent in favor of revising the Constitution in opinion polls is an aggregate figure representing many different ideas about revision, and I did not cite that figure in order to press for revision. I support establishing concrete procedures for amending the Constitution because I think that the Members of the Diet have a responsibility to clarify the amendment process and thus encourage discussion of constitutional issues between the Diet and the public.
(Comment)
>> I doubt whether the public will accept the arguments for revising the constitutional amendment procedure first.
NAKAGAWA Masaharu (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> At every election, I have the distinct feeling that the public is skeptical about whether its wishes are being truly reflected and condensed in government. In local elections, there is an ongoing trend toward candidates being endorsed by all the major parties, so that there is no longer a true opposition in local assemblies, while in national elections the trend toward two major parties leaves no room for single-issue parties. These trends are most likely contributing to the public's frustration with politics.
>> We should therefore establish an approach which retains the central role of indirect democracy and the two-party system but supplements them with methods of direct democracy to help determine the will of the people, since this cannot be grasped completely by indirect means alone.
>> The decisions of local assemblies should be respected with regard to the implementation of residents' referendums, but we should enact a Residents' Referendum Law to help put a system in place for general residents' referendums.
>> If legislation for national referendums on general issues is put in place in the same way, I think the public will develop a new attitude to politics.
TOKAI Kisaburo (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The Diet should fulfill its duty to the people by enacting a National Referendum Law for constitutional amendments.
>> Further, the actual amendment procedures are a matter that should be discussed on a different level from the enactment of a National Referendum Law.
SONODA Yasuhiro (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The fact that a National Referendum Law for constitutional amendments has never been enacted means that the Diet has failed to perform its role as set forth by the Constitution, and this is an instance of legislative nonfeasance.
>> The principle of local autonomy cited in Article 92 provides for both resident self-government and self-government by local entities. If we regard the sovereignty of the people as an extension of the sovereignty of residents, Article 92 is important from the point of view of the decentralization of power and increasing local sovereignty. Residents' referendums are being carried out in this context, and a national referendum system should be understood as part of the same continuum.
(In connection with the comments by Mr. NAGAOKA)
>> I cannot consent to amending the procedure for constitutional amendments. The United States has an even stricter amendment procedure, and yet it has amended its Constitution over twenty times. I believe that the fact that the Japanese Constitution has never been amended is due to the lack of proper debate on the Constitution until now.
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
(In connection with the comments by Mr. NAGAOKA)
>> How do those who advocate amending the procedure for constitutional revision intend to do it? Members of the Diet should have a basic awareness of their obligation to respect and uphold the Constitution.
>> While there may be a need to discuss the substance and meaning of Article 96, to argue for changing the amendment procedure is to deny the procedure laid down by the people themselves, and this is self-destructive.
YAMAHANA Ikuo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> If we are to introduce a legally binding national referendum system, I think it will be necessary to amend the Constitution.
>> In my earlier comment, I meant that I am not in favor of establishing a legally binding referendum system if that would require amending the Constitution, and, for that reason, even if we do establish a referendum system, I think it will probably be advisory in nature.
>> It is not altogether clear whether the Commission members who advocate a national referendum system have in mind an advisory system, which would not require a constitutional amendment, or a legally binding system, which would require an amendment. We need to sort this out before proceeding further with the debate.
>> Properly speaking, local assemblies and administrators have a duty to explain important issues such as municipal mergers. There is a disturbing tendency to abandon that responsibility and submit questions to a residents' referendum without sufficient preparation.
>> As one way to take advantage of national referendums, perhaps the parties could allow a conscience vote on issues that involve the political philosophy of the individual, like questions of bioethics, but members could take the results of an advisory national referendum into account in deciding how to vote.
>> In designing a national referendum system, we should not apply the same restrictions that exist under the current election laws.
TANAKA Makiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The power to initiate national referendums should not rest with the Cabinet, as they would be strongly inclined to hold referendums only on those issues where it suited them.
>> The question of who is to initiate referendums is an important one. As part of the reforms of the House of Councillors, we could give it that power.
>> When municipal mergers are put to a residents' referendum, I wonder how much explanation the residents are given beforehand and how seriously local bodies think about their future before holding a referendum. We in the Diet, including this Commission, must go back to first principles and look at questions like these.
SHIBAYAMA Masahiko (Liberal Democratic Party)
(In connection with the comments by Ms. DOI)
>> Even if we amended Article 96 first, we would of course amend it in accordance with the article itself.
>> Those who advocate amending Article 96 first define the problem as follows: they take a critical view of the fact that, ever since the Constitution was enacted, it has been applied through cumulative "revisions by interpretation," and they have concluded that we should revise the Constitution properly, and that we should therefore revise the amendment procedure to make it realistic.
>> Referendums are an embodiment of the power to enact a constitution; they are required because the Constitution is the supreme law, and I am not contending that we should do away with them. There should be no constitutional problem if we were to relax the conditions for initiation by the Diet to require a concurring vote of one-half of all members, for example, instead of the present two-thirds.
(Comment)
>> It would be possible to put questions of bioethics and the like to referendums, but ongoing expert study will be needed. Questions of foreign policy and defense are not suited to referendums.
ITO Kosuke (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> We must, of course, act without delay to clarify the procedure for amending the Constitution, including such questions as what is meant by "all the members" in Article 96, who is to initiate amendments, and what is meant by "a majority" of votes in a referendum.
>> Popular election of the Prime Minister, as one way of reflecting the will of the people directly, should be a major topic of study in revising the Constitution.
>> When residents are asked whether facilities of a type generally considered undesirable, such as industrial waste disposal plants, should be built in their neighborhood, there is usually a majority of "no" votes. Although these referendums may not be legally binding, the residents' wishes cannot be ignored, and they could potentially bring the waste disposal administration to a standstill. A system of residents' referendums is necessary, but in discussing it we must give careful thought to the balance between the public interest and individual rights.
AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)
>> Some speakers have called the lack of a National Referendum Law for constitutional amendments "legislative nonfeasance," but this seems misplaced to me.
>> As I see it, there was not much latitude for discussing amendment procedures in the past, because constitutional revision was always discussed in the form of an all-or-nothing debate.
>> As I understand it, the amendment procedure is now being discussed at last because, in the current debate, those who want to revise the Constitution propose to do so only where necessary and as far as necessary. That being the case, surely there is no question of "legislative nonfeasance."
SAKAMOTO Goji (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> When we look at the present situation in residents' referendums, supporters and opponents of a measure often go door-to-door, canvassing for or against the proposed nuclear power plant or industrial waste disposal facility or whatever is at issue. We must not discuss national referendums in the same terms as local referendums of this kind. The measures submitted to national referendums should be limited to important issues on the order of constitutional amendments, popular review of Supreme Court justices, and so on. Further, strict limits should be placed on campaigning before national referendums to ensure fairness.
WADA Takashi (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> I asked my constituents about this topic by e-mail, and I received many comments from people saying they would certainly like to take part in national referendums, but they would prefer them to be on issues more closely related to their daily lives, rather than constitutional amendments.
>> Some countries have adopted a referendum system not only for constitutional amendments but also to decide laws and policies. Perhaps Japan could adopt a referendum system of this kind to complement the parliamentary system, which is based on single-seat constituencies, and to compensate for its defects, thereby gaining an accurate picture of public opinion. In adopting such a system, it would be possible not only to set conditions to prevent abuse, but also—if I may offer a suggestion of my own—to ask voters their opinions of policies and laws when they vote in the national elections.
YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party)
(In connection with the comments by Ms. DOI)
>> The obligation to respect and uphold the Constitution and the current efforts and proposals to revise the Constitution are completely different matters.
(Comments)
>> The existing Constitution is organized on the basis of a parliamentary system, and then, as an exception, it establishes systems to decide matters which must be decided directly by the people, who hold the power to enact a constitution; those matters are popular review of Supreme Court justices and constitutional amendments. Before introducing a system of national referendums on specific issues, we should conduct a careful debate; among other points, we should consider whether this will necessitate a constitutional amendment.
>> In terms of seeking the opinion of the people, we should relax the requirements for initiating constitutional amendments in order to restore to them the power to enact a constitution, which presently exists in name only because of the unduly strict requirements.
>> I think this Commission is gradually arriving at a common understanding that the system of judicial review is not functioning. Accordingly, we should take steps to reform the system by, for example, giving the Supreme Court the power of abstract judicial review or creating a Constitutional Court.
>> The requirement for initiating a constitutional amendment is at present two-thirds of the Members of each House. We should consider this from various viewpoints, including the system design of the Constitution as a whole and ways to guarantee the Constitution, in order to enable the Diet to respond when the courts find a law to be unconstitutional.
EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
(In connection with the comments by Mr. SAKAMOTO)
>> In the case of residents' referendums, a certain amount of regulation is inevitable because of problems arising from the fact that they are held on a local scale and on very specific issues; in particular, allowing campaigners a completely free hand would disturb the peace and quiet of residents' private lives. But questions involving constitutional amendments are broad issues that concern the people as a whole, and the public must have the opportunity to encounter a wide range of opinions, just as this Commission has done by inviting many informants to its sessions. Thus, national referendums should not be subject to the kind of restrictions on campaigning in the media and elsewhere that are imposed under the Public Offices Election Law. The people should be guaranteed extensive freedom of political activity.
(Comment)
>> Whether the Constitution should be rigid requires study, but the fact that it has not previously been revised is not due to the strict conditions for initiating amendments. We should be aware of the historical background, that is, the fact that public support for constitutional revision never reached a majority before now. If we consider that revising the Constitution, the nation's basic law, requires a national consensus, and that a referendum should serve to confirm that consensus, the requirement of a two-thirds majority in the Diet as a condition for initiating an amendment can be seen as quite reasonable.
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
(In connection with the comments by Mr. YASUOKA)
>> Does the public really think that the Constitution has been fully implemented? To change the Constitution, the public must have enthusiasm or a sense of urgency that an amendment is needed even if this means having to meet strict requirements. The people have considerable misgivings about any revision of Article 9, which is central to the three basic principles of the Constitution. That condition has not been met, and I do not believe that the people's consent can be obtained.
>> The obligation to respect and uphold the Constitution set forth in Article 99 means that changes to its three basic principles are not permitted. Instead of changing the Constitution to fit the realities, we need to make the realities fit the Constitution.
SHIBAYAMA Masahiko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> While it is reasonable to hold residents' referendums on certain important issues, I think they are unsuitable for questions involving basic principles of state policy, and also for voting on proposals to build controversial facilities which are often opposed, even though such facilities are certainly closely related to the residents' lives. Residents' referendums are important, but they should not be the sole arbiter; provision should be made so that their results are not necessarily binding.
YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party)
(In connection with the comments by Ms. DOI)
>> I doubt that anyone thinks that every provision of the existing Constitution has been implemented ideally. We are making steady efforts to come closer to the ideals of the Constitution, for example, by working on a series of reforms of the judicial system. At the same time, while I have a high regard for the role that the Constitution has played, we should also endeavor to improve and strengthen its principles, keeping in sight both the lessons learned in the last sixty years and a vision of the future.
>> This Commission encompasses a broad range of opinions, and the debate is gaining increasing depth. I have a high regard even for the point of view of those who wish to maintain the existing Constitution. I intend to keep striving for in-depth discussion, thinking of the future.
(In connection with the comments by Mr. TSUJI)
>> The Liberal Democratic Party is sounding out public opinion and making efforts to release information to the public with a view to an eventual national referendum on amending the Constitution. For example, we listen to the views of citizens in regional communities, and we post the minutes of the party's own Research Commission on the Constitution on the Internet.
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
>> We should be putting the principles of the Constitution into practice, but instead we are trying to change the Constitution to fit the present realities. The people, with whom sovereignty resides, are worried about the recently enacted package of emergency laws, among other measures. What the Diet needs to do if it is to regain the public's trust is to faithfully implement the Constitution.
>> To make the rigid provisions of Article 96 flexible would run counter to the obligation to respect and uphold the Constitution under Article 99, and it could be called an act of constitutional self-destruction.