Meeting Agenda
Matters relating to the Constitution of Japan
1. A free discussion was held on the Preamble and other matters.
2. A free discussion was held to conclude the Commission's research on the Constitution as a whole.
3. The closing speech was made by Chairman NAKAYAMA.
The Preamble and other matters
Main points of initial round of comments by representatives of each party
FUKUDA Yasuo (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The existing Preamble should be revised, as it consists solely of reflections on war and does not provide the Japanese people with aspirations and hope.
>> The pacifism which figures so prominently in the Preamble has taken root among the people, as is clearly demonstrated by Japan's commitment to work for international peace. We should continue actively pursuing these efforts and meet the expectations of the international community. But we should also recognize the fact that the emphasis placed on pacifism has caused a weakening of the public's concept of self-defense.
>> The Preamble should clearly set forth the course and the goals to which the nation and people aspire. Specifically, it needs to (a) declare to the international community that Japan continues to maintain its pacifist principles, and (b) make it clear that, while placing particular importance on Japan's unique identity, we seek a better society and nation.
>> Further, in setting the above national goals, we need to consider the ambient conditions presently facing Japan, that is, (a) the limitations of environmental resources; (b) the inevitable process of internationalization; (c) the impact of a declining population on the economy and society.
>> At the same time, it is also necessary to ensure that we do not make the provisions of the Preamble so confining that we leave ourselves unable to guarantee the nation's security.
>> In any case, there is a need to give the Preamble careful consideration since, at a time when Japan and the world are at a major turning point, it sets forth the ideal vision of the nation's future, and it must also be explainable to the rest of the world.
KANO Michihiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The existing Preamble, with its declaration of pacifism and democracy, has been very important until now, and thus a Preamble will continue to be necessary to set forth a vision of the Japan of the future and the course that it means to take within the international community.
>> However, other countries' constitutions tend to have relatively short preambles, and Japan's should also be fairly concise, centering on a clear statement of the three constitutional principles.
>> In drawing up a new Preamble, we should first examine how fully the three constitutional principles have been realized, and then proceed by asking what provisions are necessary to further their realization.
>> The Preamble should also declare high ideals, including our values for the future, so that the Japanese can have a sense of national pride. Specifically, we should include: (a) symbiosis with nature, (b) banishing poverty and servitude, (c) the fine values and ideals that are particular to Japan, as exemplified by Prince Shotoku's philosophy of wa (harmony) and by Fukuzawa Yukichi's ideas about "individual autonomy."
>> The wording of the Preamble should be as easy as possible to understand.
AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)
>> The existing Preamble is not only inadequately worded, but its contents have been found wanting; for example, (a) the three constitutional principles are not adequately expressed, and (b) it is too colorless and remote from the history, traditions, and culture that give Japan its unique identity. We should therefore create a concise Preamble that reflects a new and contemporary consciousness, taking into account 21st century conditions.
>> Another reason why we need to embody a new contemporary consciousness in the Preamble is that Japan has become a society with a low birthrate and aging population, and this calls for a broad shift in the values of society as a whole.
>> In developing a new contemporary consciousness, we should be aware that never before has there been so great a need for human security, in addition to the security of the state and of society.
>> At the same time, we also need to establish new values and a new vision of the nation for the coming era. For example, New Komeito's model of "a peace-loving nation imbued with culture" is, broadly speaking, on the same track as former Prime Minister NAKASONE's vision of "a nation founded on education and culture," which he described in his statement before this Commission
>> The constitutional debate should not take place among politicians alone. We should recognize anew the importance of a national debate. There is, in fact, a popular movement which is worthy of note in favor of revising the Preamble.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> The basic principles of the Constitution are made abundantly clear by the Preamble, which not only sets down the historical background to its enactment, but declares Japan's desire for peace and its resolve to achieve it, and which sets the nation's course.
>> The horrors of war and the experience of despotic government during the 20th century taught us that we must strive to outlaw war and improve human rights and democracy. These goals were incorporated in the Preamble of the Constitution as part of a worldwide trend, and they still have a fresh significance today as endeavors that we should continue to pursue.
>> In embracing human rights and democracy the Preamble heralded a major change, from imperial sovereignty and the restriction of human rights under the Meiji Constitution, to the sovereignty of the people, and this declaration was a landmark event in history.
>> With regard to the permanent pacifism of the Preamble, the intention to send a message of peace to the world is clear, and the same principles can point the way to peace for Japan and the world in the 21st century. Also, the concept of a "right to live in peace" treats peace as a question of human rights; in the Naganuma Nike case, which contested the construction of Self-Defense Force facilities, the lower court's ruling recognized the right to live in peace as a fundamental human right with the status of a judicial norm. Japan's was the first constitution in the world to explicitly state that peace and human rights are indivisible and to embody this idea in concrete ways, and it is thus very significant.
>> When he dispatched the Self-Defense Forces to Iraq, Prime Minister KOIZUMI quoted the Preamble's words, "We believe that no nation is responsible to itself alone." But his action, which follows the line of the unilateralist United States, is unconstitutional and cannot be justified by citing the Constitution.
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
>> There is a strong current of public opinion which says that the Constitution has taken root among the people and there is no need to change it.
>> Even though the Far Eastern Commission decided in October 1946 that, after the Constitution entered into force, it would be necessary to re-examine whether it was accepted by the people, in the end this was not done—a sign that the Constitution had indeed been accepted by the Japanese public of the day—and thus the contention that the Constitution was imposed is wrong. Further evidence that the existing Constitution was not imposed is the fact that, when it was being drawn up, many private drafts along the same general lines as the present Constitution were proposed by members of the public.
>> Some say that the Constitution of Japan adopts a doctrine of "one-nation pacifism," but the words "We believe that no nation is responsible to itself alone" belie this claim, since they show that the peace sought by the Constitution is not peace for Japan alone.
>> Some people argue that history, traditions, culture, and so on should be incorporated in the Constitution, but these things are neither universal nor uniquely defined; they are diverse, and it is against reason to incorporate them in the Constitution.
>> Any revision that contradicts these constitutional principles expressed in the Preamble is a violation and an act of destruction against the Constitution.
Comments after the first round
HAYAKAWA Chuko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The existing Constitution is a "borrowed" one, enacted while a purge of public officials was under way and there was no freedom of speech. Today, sixty years after the war, we are being called on to rethink what form the Constitution should take.
>> Today, at a time when the family and the community are said to be on the brink of collapse, we need to create a new Constitution that incorporates our history, traditions, and culture with the aim of building a moral nation with a foundation of high ethical standards, in addition to clearly stating such principles as symbiosis with the environment and coexistence in the international community.
ISHIDA Noritoshi (New Komeito)
>> The Constitution has fulfilled its role for nearly sixty years, but today there are calls for additional provisions such as environmental rights and the right to privacy, and, in my view, in the future it will no longer be adequate in its present form. The Preamble is the "constitution of the Constitution," a statement of the broad premises underlying the body of the Constitution; thus, if the body of the Constitution is to be revised in line with the changing times, it will also be necessary to revise the Preamble.
MARUYA Kaori (New Komeito)
>> I think that we should revise the Preamble based on the noble spirit embodied in the present text; it would be going a little too far, however, if we were to lay down a particular set of values such as patriotism or the family.
>> We should clearly state our desire for peace and our respect for human rights. In so doing, we should make clear our reasons for desiring peace by touching upon the painful experiences brought by war.
>> Further, as the only nation to have experienced nuclear attack, Japan should declare its commitment to working for nuclear disarmament and building peace.
NAKANE Yasuhiro (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Despite the declaration of respect for the individual in Article 13, cases of human rights violations continue unabated. In light of this reality, the Preamble should state explicitly that fundamental human rights will be respected.
>> I would like to see the Preamble declare a ban on all forms of discrimination. On that basis, I hope to see Japan become a nation that takes into account the needs of the socially disadvantaged, such as people with disabilities, by devising legislative and other measures.
FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The Preamble presents the "image" of the Constitution, and if we revise the Constitution, I think the Preamble should be revised last of all, as a summation of the debate. Thus, at this point, it is too early to specify what it should include.
>> Personally, however, I think that in revising the Constitution we should include the following four points in the Preamble: (a) the importance of values such as the dignity of life or of human beings; (b) the indivisible nature of rights and duties; (c) active pacifism; (d) environmental ideals and a commitment to carry on the symbiosis with nature that is a longstanding element of Japanese history, traditions, and culture.
TAKAGI Michiyo (New Komeito)
>> There is no need to rewrite the existing Preamble. I say this because the pacifism expressed in Article 9 and the principle of international cooperation set forth in the Preamble both grew out of the experience of the horrors of war, as the Preamble of the UN Charter also states, and they reflect the situation at the time when the Constitution was enacted. Indeed, rather than rewriting the Preamble, we should continue to attest to the experience of war which led to the present Constitution being enacted.
>> The Preamble says "We desire to occupy an honored place in an international society ...." I think "an honored place" is an excellent phrase; in order to earn such a place, it is important that we put pacifist ideals actively into practice. Japan today has, at last, gained the capacity to achieve that goal.
SAKAMOTO Goji (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> This Constitution does not belong to the Japanese people, and there is nothing moving or inspiring in the Preamble. It merely expresses the policies of the American Occupation.
>> Japan has four beautiful seasons, and by living closely attuned to their changing cycle, its people have developed a unique culture. What do the Japanese of today think they can make of this country if they are not aware of this fact?
>> I believe we should set forth a Japanese identity with true dignity by celebrating Japanese history and traditions in the Preamble.
HANASHI Yasuhiro (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> That the existing Preamble is badly written cannot be denied; one cannot even tell what country the present Constitution belongs to.
>> I think we should pay more attention to the fact that the present Constitution was accompanied by an Imperial edict. This reads in part, "We rejoice that the foundation for the construction of a new Japan has been laid according to the will of the Japanese people ...," indicating that the Emperor accepted, of his own accord, the spirit of the "August revolution."
>> Since a legal formula like the Imperial edict no longer exists, we should take advantage of the Preamble as the place to declare the intent of those who hold the right to enact a constitution.
>> That is to say, we should bring the values unique to this country together with universal principles to create a nation in which every one of the Japanese people can take pride; we should also declare our commitment to the principle of active international cooperation, to fostering the acceptance of universal laws of political morality, and to ideals such as becoming a nation founded on coexistence, culture, and protecting the environment.
NAGAOKA Yoji (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> In our discussions to date, we have recognized that the Preamble should be a clear signpost indicating the nation's future course. But the existing Preamble cannot be said to do this; moreover, it is out of touch with reality.
>> The existing Preamble also lacks the perspective of presenting the Japanese people's own vision for the nation. As points of reference for that vision, the Preamble should stipulate the principle of environmentalism and the importance of the family.
>> Further, it should place a more positive emphasis than the present version on contributions to the international community.
SHIBAYAMA Masahiko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Popular sovereignty—one of the three basic constitutional principles—has not yet become a reality. One reason for this is a lack of interest among the people in supporting the nation and their own region. Among its principles, the Preamble should state clearly that the people will support the nation and their region.
>> It is true that one facet of modern constitutionalism is that a constitution represents a set of restrictive norms addressed to state authority. But it should be noted that, at the same time, the Constitution is also the basic law of the nation, and this makes it important to express a balanced set of values in the Preamble.
>> Pacifism is important, but we must ask ourselves whether giving up arms is, in fact, the way to achieve peace. From that point of view, the Preamble should place more emphasis on Japan's active contributions to realizing international peace.
>> The Preamble should set forth, clearly and simply, the ideals of respect for life and the importance of the environment.
KATO Katsunobu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The Preamble should set forth a clear vision for the nation while firmly upholding such principles as pacifism and democracy.
>> While I recognize that modern constitutions are based on an opposition between the state and the individual, Japan owes its present prosperity not only to the state and the individual, but to efforts at every level of society, including the community and the family, and the important question is how these are to be carried forward in the years to come. Thus, the Preamble should contain explicit provisions concerning the family and the home.
>> The Preamble should contain a clear statement of universal principles, besides the three basic constitutional principles, together with the history and traditions of Japan and the principles of coexistence with others and symbiosis with the environment.
>> Perhaps because the wording is based on a translation from English, the existing Preamble does not make the people the direct subject of its statements. We should rewrite it so that the people become the subject; this would also make it easier to understand.
MATSUMIYA Isao (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> We should rewrite the Preamble completely, in concise, plain, and clear terms, and set forth the three basic constitutional principles explicitly.
>> The Preamble should present a vision of the nation that we wish Japan to become, drawing on our history, traditions, and culture.
>> The Preamble should declare a commitment to making active and positive international contributions.
>> We should declare that the people themselves are responsible for achieving the above goals.
HIRAI Takuya (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Not only does the existing Preamble fail to convey Japan's history, traditions, and culture, but its sentences are too long and difficult to understand.
>> We should not be concerned with whether the Constitution was imposed at the drafting stage. Every constitution is premised on the situation that exists when it is enacted; this is only natural. And if the situation today is different, it is only natural to change the Constitution.
>> Besides the three basic constitutional principles, possible points to be added to the Preamble include: respect for the traditional community, culture, and traditions; an active diplomatic stance with the goal of achieving international peace; and a spirit of coexistence.
SUZUKI Katsumasa (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Ideally, the Preamble should be so clear and concise that the public can memorize it.
>> We should firmly uphold pacifism as a universal principle.
>> Possible items to be added to the Preamble include: an emphasis on Japan's time-honored history, traditions, and culture; love of country; the principle of respect for human rights; and environmental concerns.
KONO Taro (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Some see the language of the present Preamble as "translationese" and find it difficult to read; others say that, by now, they have grown used to it and accept it as Japanese. I am in favor of rewriting the Preamble, provided that we make it clear and easy to understand.
>> I think we should incorporate popular sovereignty, pacifism, and respect for fundamental human rights in the Preamble, because these are universal values. However, we should strictly avoid making explicit provision for things that are not universal values, such as history, traditions, and culture.
NAKAGAWA Masaharu (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Popular sovereignty, pacifism, and fundamental human rights should be stipulated explicitly in the Preamble, as they are accepted by the Japanese as universal values.
>> Japan has built itself up as a nation while reflecting on the prewar years and perceiving itself as lagging behind other nations. However, now that we are a mature society, in the Preamble we should declare the values that we ourselves wish to convey to the world.
>> The Preamble should set forth the values of the Japanese, such as harmony with nature, respect for life, and coexistence within the family.
TSUJI Megumu (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> There is no need to change the existing Preamble, as it proclaims universal principles which are a repository of the wisdom of humankind.
>> Japan's history, traditions, and culture are indeed important, but to espouse them as ideals in the Preamble cannot be equated with taking good care of them in actual practice.
EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> It would be out of place to stipulate the duties or responsibilities of the people in the Preamble, because the Constitution is an authorizing norm. However, it might be compatible with the Constitution's nature as an authorizing norm if the subject were "the people" rather than "the state" (for example, "we, the people, recognize our responsibilities and duties"), and such a statement could possibly be included in the Preamble.
>> The existing Constitution does not mandate the collapse of the family or deterioration of the community. There is no reason why family values could not have been maintained and our communities improved by legislative and administrative means. Thus I find it incongruous when the Liberal Democratic Party, after being in power for many years, points to the collapse of the family or the decline of the community as if it were somebody else's problem.
>> People have very different ideas about what "tradition" and "culture" are, and if we refer to these concepts in the Preamble, unless we work out very carefully how to do it, the debate will become confused.
>> New Komeito favors adding new provisions to the existing Constitution, but if it is to be revised, I suggest that it would be worth thinking about writing a preamble for the revision act, since the existing Preamble deserves to be kept as a historical declaration.
MIHARA Asahiko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The "one-nation pacifism" seen in the existing Preamble is problematic. The Preamble should set forth a concrete role for Japan in the international community.
YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> If the Constitution is revised, it will be the first time in the history of Japan that a constitution will have been enacted by popular vote, and this fact should be clearly stated in a new Preamble.
>> The new Preamble should pay tribute to the beauty and splendor of the land of Japan, as suggested in the "Proposal Concerning Revision of the Constitution of Japan" prepared by the Institute for International Policy Studies.
>> In light of the major role that the Japanese emperors have played in ensuring the nation's stability throughout its long history, and the fact that they have no parallel anywhere in the world, the Preamble should set forth the concept of Japan as "a democratic nation with the Emperor as a symbol of the unity of its people."
>> In thinking about the Constitution as supreme law, we should take into account not only the autonomous status of the individual, but also the importance of the public sphere, that is, the family and the community, which underpins individual autonomy.
NAKATANI Gen (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The preamble of a constitution should set out the framework of the nation. However, in the present Preamble, one notes that: (a) the people, with whom sovereignty resides, are stipulated only as possessing rights and not as having duties and responsibilities; (b) pacifism is also presented solely in idealistic terms centered on the United Nations, and this is divorced from reality.
>> The existing Preamble is so devoted to internationalist ideals that it makes no mention of the Japanese moral character, which could be called the foundation of the nation. If we are to address the various problems facing both the international community and Japan, and to fulfill our responsibilities and our duty in the international community, we should set forth an ideal vision of the nation and the Japanese moral character which is its foundation.
OIDE Akira (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The substantive content and the requirements are what matter in a law, rather than the beauty of the text. The existing Preamble can be evaluated positively as it proclaims a message to the world, including popular sovereignty through parliamentary democracy, together with ideals such as international cooperation.
>> The preamble of a constitution contains the ideals and goals of its framers, and a constitution must only be revised in ways that develop those ideals and goals further.
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
>> Those who favor constitutional revision and those who oppose it seem to have different ideas as to what a constitution is. In my view, a modern constitution should be understood as a set of restrictive norms that declare the dignity of the individual and impose limits on state power in order to guarantee the human rights of the people.
>> In this regard, the proposal to rethink Article 24's statement of the dignity of the individual and the equality of the sexes in matters relating to family life and to stipulate the family as the basis of society is a departure from the legal principle that the Constitution is a set of restrictive norms, a departure which could lead to the kind of statism that, before the war, sacrificed the individual for the good of the state.
HAYAKAWA Chuko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The Preamble is imprecise and liable to be misunderstood; for example, in a number of places it leaves room for two interpretations, and for this reason it should be revised.
NAKATANI Gen (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The importance of home and family is a principle universal to humankind, and it is clear that healthy people grow up in healthy homes. The state can play only a limited role, while in a number of fields, including education and home-based nursing care, a major role falls to the family and the home as the smallest unit of society. In light of their role in these areas, it is important to state the ideal of respect for the family and the home in the Constitution.
EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Bearing in mind that some people who want to have a family are unable to do so for various reasons, we should proceed with caution before stipulating family values in the Constitution.
Free discussion to conclude the Commission's research as a whole
Main points of initial round of comments by representatives of each party
YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> It is the duty of politicians, at this historic turning point, to review the Constitution in the light of a vision for the nation.
>> In the new Constitution, in addition to maintaining the existing Constitution's basic principles, which are universal, we should make clear provision for the harmony among people and with nature that forms part of the traditions or national character of Japan, together with a statement that Japan is a peace-loving nation that contributes actively to peace, and a statement of respect for other nations.
>> While maintaining and developing respect for the integrity of the individual, a value which characterizes modern constitutions, we should build a new value system taking into account the value of the public sphere, a correct relationship between the state and the people, and a division of roles between the public and private spheres. We should stipulate the obligation of the people to respect and protect the Constitution and their responsibility to defend the nation.
>> As there is a popular consensus regarding the role of the Emperor as symbol, we should designate him the symbolic head of state with no powers related to government. Explicit provision should be made in the Constitution for his public acts, but female succession to the throne should be recognized in the Imperial Household Law.
>> With regard to pacifist principles, while maintaining Article 9, Paragraph 1, we should make explicit provision for the Self-Defense Forces as an army and clarify the Prime Minister's right of command and the rules for the use of force. As a peace-loving nation, we should exercise force with restraint.
>> With regard to the structure of governance, together with ensuring timely and appropriate leadership by the Prime Minister, we should review such areas as the bicameral system, the judicial system, the amendment procedure, and local self-government.
>> I welcome as a historic development Mr. EDANO's comment expressing his party's willingness to hold talks with the ruling parties on a National Referendum Bill. In conducting the debate on constitutional revision, we should bear in mind the spirit of harmony set forth in Prince Shotoku's Constitution of Seventeen Articles.
EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> I regard it as a positive achievement that, in the course of five years of research, we have overcome the polarization between those in favor of maintaining the existing Constitution and those in favor of revision. There is a wide range of opinion among the latter, and it is not correct to view the debate as consisting of two diametrically opposed positions.
>> It is the people who will decide whether to revise the Constitution. What is needed from this point on, based on the debate so far, is the creation of a national consensus.
>> The requirement of the consent of two-thirds or more of the members of each House to initiate a constitutional amendment points to the necessity for the largest and second largest groups in the Diet to rise above their differences and arrive at a consensus. We need to find common rules for the exercise of public authority.
>> Talks among the parties on establishing a National Referendum Law will be a crucial test in the constitutional revision debate.
OTA Akihiro (New Komeito)
>> Since we will need a forum to discuss the ideal vision for the nation on an ongoing basis, we should establish a successor body to the Research Commission on the Constitution.
>> Discussing the Constitution means thinking deeply about Japanese beliefs, culture, and traditions. Since ancient times, Japan has accepted a wide variety of other cultures and made them its own. It is important to discuss the roots of our culture.
>> We should consider a Constitution oriented toward the future, based on four elements: IT, the genome, the environment, and resident participation. We need to conduct the debate in greater depth and on a more national scale, continuing to address such fundamental issues as the fiscal crisis and social security in an aging society with a low birthrate, and crisis management by the state.
>> The Liberal Democratic Party, New Komeito, and the Democratic Party of Japan should take the lead in forming a consensus on a National Referendum Law as a concrete realization of Article 96. The same register of voters should be used for national referendums as for national elections, and the voting should be held separately from national elections.
>> Partial revision or adding to the existing Constitution is a concrete and realistic option in light of the need to weigh proposed revisions one article at a time and the need for continuity of the Constitution.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> The purpose of the Research Commission on the Constitution is to conduct broad and comprehensive research on the Constitution of Japan; the Commission does not have the power to submit legislative proposals. We should recognize that it differs both in its nature and in its purpose from the Cabinet's former Commission on the Constitution.
>> There has not been a full investigation of some topics which the Japanese Communist Party proposed for study, namely: (a) the groundbreaking nature of the Constitution's contents; (b) the actual state of government as compared to the basic principles of the Constitution; (c) examination of the claim that the Constitution was imposed in the light of the actual process that led to its enactment.
>> Many informants and speakers have noted that the role of this Commission includes investigating how the Constitution has been interpreted and applied, yet for the past five years the research schedule has been determined on the basis that the Constitution is to be revised.
>> The gap between Article 9 and reality is due to the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and the presence of U.S. forces in Japan. We should face the fact that successive administrations have violated Article 9.
>> At the Open Hearings, many speakers commented that they feel that the Constitution is truly valuable, and that the problem lies in administrative practices that prevent the realization of constitutional principles.
>> In accordance with the intentions stated when this Commission was established, the final report should deal solely with the process and the result of the research; it is not permissible for it to map out a particular course of action. The proposals to sort the comments according to topic headings and to report the numerical weighting of opinions are a departure from the regulations of the Commission.
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
>> I request that an opportunity be provided to discuss the editorial policy regarding the detailed contents of the final Report.
>> The Report should summarize the Commission's findings on the role and value of the Constitution of Japan, and we also need to discuss whether the Commission's stated objective has actually been carried out. It should not start with the premise that the Constitution is to be revised. Also, the Open Hearings should be summarized in a separate section.
>> I hope the Report will recognize that the Constitution has been accepted by the people and that it will acknowledge the existence of a gap between political realities and the Constitution.
>> The contents of the budget for the Report should be made known to all of the Commission's members.
>> There have been media reports stating that the contents of our Report will take a particular direction. There is a risk that the spread of such reports will undermine the Diet's authority.
>> The Constitution itself does not permit changes for the worse which contravene its fundamental principles.
>> As unconstitutional realities steadily mount up, it is not permissible to try to change the Constitution to fit the realities. Members of the Diet need to be aware of their obligation to protect and uphold the Constitution.
Comments after the first round
FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Our discussions in this Commission have moved beyond the unproductive doctrinal debate which once marked discussions of the Constitution, and it is important that the final Report indicate the numerical weight of opinions and present a course of action, rather than merely listing the arguments.
>> I welcome Mr. EDANO's comment at last week's session that his party is prepared to hold talks on a National Referendum Law. In future, we should pursue talks among not only the first and second largest parties but also the third largest in order to find points in common.
HANASHI Yasuhiro (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> As long as the Liberal Democratic Party has been in power, it has applied an ambiguous Constitution in a flexible way. It is necessary to revise the Constitution, however, because of the risk that an eventual change of government could result in Article 9 being interpreted without restraint, at which point the ambiguity of the present Constitution would become a destabilizing factor. A permanent Committee on the Constitution is needed as a forum of debate for this purpose.
>> In a society where the pie of economic opportunity was expanding, perhaps individual rights could be guaranteed to the fullest possible extent with only "the public welfare" as a constraint, but in today's zero-sum society emphasis must be placed on consideration for the rights of others as a social norm.
>> The Report needs to indicate a course of action relating to a future vision for the nation.
KONO Taro (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Given the need to pursue the debate further and the presence in the Constitution of a provision for its amendment, it is the Diet's duty to put an amendment procedure in place. A successor body to this Commission should deliberate on a National Referendum Bill and see it passed into law.
OMURA Hideaki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> To keep pace with the rapidly changing international situation, among other measures, we need to make explicit provision for the Self-Defense Forces in the Constitution, to consider what form public finances and local self-government should take, and to introduce a unicameral system.
>> In preparing the final Report, we should take into account the large number of members of this Commission who have stated that revision of the Constitution is necessary.
>> It is necessary to establish a successor body to this Commission, to enact a National Referendum Law during the current session of the Diet, and to give the public an indication of the prospects for constitutional revision.
SHIBAYAMA Masahiko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The Report should indicate a direction by making clear what were the most widely-supported opinions. Further, popular consensus on the most pressing issues should be sought without delay.
>> This Commission should be reorganized to form a body which will carry on discussion of the Constitution on a permanent basis and deliberate on a National Referendum Bill.
MATSUNO Hirokazu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> There have been changes in the public's view of the Constitution, particularly in regard to what form international contributions should take, awareness of new human rights, and various issues accompanying scientific and technological advances.
>> The younger generation has accepted the fundamental principles of the Constitution as internalized values, and they look forward to enacting a new Constitution while retaining the good features of the existing one.
>> This Commission should note the changes in public attitudes and carry the debate forward in the direction of concrete measures, including the enactment of a National Referendum Law.
HAYAKAWA Chuko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> This Commission has opened its proceedings to the public by publishing its deliberations on the Internet and holding Open Hearings, among other measures. Also, as its membership has changed in the course of two general elections, it has been able to reflect the diversity of public opinion.
>> We should establish a new body that can distill public opinion based on the progress of our research up to this point.
WADA Takashi (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> That this Commission has been able to transcend partisan positions in its discussions is a valuable achievement.
>> The Report should distill the views of the sovereign people, and it should be able to present them with choices. Further, it should be based on the opinion of the majority, while taking into account the diversity of the public's wishes.
HIRAI Takuya (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> We need a Constitution that is simple and clear, and that has the ideas and the breadth to overcome the prevailing sense of helplessness in the face of present conditions and grim resignation for the future.
>> We should map out the route to enactment of an autonomous Constitution by passing a National Referendum Law and establishing a permanent body in order to utilize the work of this Commission.
MORIYAMA Mayumi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I am opposed to the creation of a Constitutional Court because (a) it is unsuited to Japan in light of our history and culture, and (b) it would impose serious restraints on the status and functions of the Diet.
>> We should retain the existing system of incidental judicial review, because if abstract judicial review is introduced to Japan, major political problems can be foreseen when justices are appointed, when rulings of unconstitutionality are issued, and when there is a change of government.
>> We should state in the Constitution that judges' remuneration may be reduced to the extent that it does not impair their independence.
>> Critics claim that the system of popular review of Supreme Court justices has become a mere formality. We should consider a democratic system of checks while allowing for the independence of the bench.
>> With regard to the system of "lay judges," taking into account the doubts raised in the debate as to the constitutional status of such a system, we should make provision in the Constitution for popular participation in the administration of justice.
OIDE Akira (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Some people advocate making explicit provision in the Constitution for Japan's history, traditions, and culture. While I can understand their argument up to a point, it smacks of a return to the past. We should give careful thought to the question of how far these elements should be included.
>> Neither Paragraph 1 nor Paragraph 2 of Article 9 should be revised.
>> In discussing constitutional revision, we should begin with those items on which the public is closest to agreement. Another question that remains to be addressed is how to handle items for which the Constitution's provisions have not been realized in concrete legislation.
YAMAGUCHI Tomio (Japanese Communist Party)
>> The editorial policy for the final Report, which calls for stating the numerical weighting of opinions, was agreed to at a meeting of directors by only three parties, the Liberal Democrats, the Democratic Party of Japan, and New Komeito. To indicate a course of action or the weighting of arguments departs from the true purpose of this Commission, which is research.
>> Creating a successor body to this Commission is not a matter that should be discussed here, as it involves the composition of the House. Moreover, constitutional questions can be discussed adequately in relation to concrete issues in the various Standing Committees. The activities of this Commission should end upon the submission of its Report to the Speaker.
>> A national referendum law for constitutional amendments is unnecessary in so far as the people, with whom sovereignty resides, do not want constitutional revision. Further, although its proponents describe it as a purely procedural law, in fact it is a move that anticipates revision of the Constitution.
>> The contents of the present Constitution have been greatly enriched since its enactment through debates at the administrative and scholarly levels. In this Commission's five years of debate, also, many informants have stressed the value of the peace and democracy proclaimed by the Constitution.
ITO Kosuke (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Japan should aim to become a nation founded on scientific and technological creativity.
>> In the Preamble of the new Constitution, we should explicitly state our intention to address environmental problems on a global scale.
>> We should aim for a unicameral system because there is a need for prompt policy decisions, among other reasons.
>> We should create a system of popular election of the Prime Minister, enabling the public to choose the nation's leader directly.
NAGAOKA Yoji (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Because decisions on revising the Constitution ultimately rest with the people, we should encourage a national constitutional debate by preparing pamphlets which present the contents of our final Report in plain language. These should also be used in schools in an effort to heighten the public's understanding of and interest in the Constitution.
>> It is essential to establish a committee to consider a National Referendum Bill.
>> In view of the requirements for a constitutional amendment, in approaching constitutional revision we should first of all identify the areas that we have in common.
>> It is not realistic to revise the whole Constitution. We should initially aim to revise Article 96 and Article 9.
NAKAGAWA Masaharu (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> It seems to me that, through five years of discussion in this Commission, we have moved from ideological confrontation to a realistic debate, and points in common have emerged among the parties.
>> The Report should set out the points at issue in a clearly organized way.
>> It is necessary for this Commission to map out a course of action for realizing a National Referendum Law.
>> This Commission should also discuss the question of a forum for future constitutional debate. In so doing, we Members of the Diet should send a message to the public.
FUTADA Koji (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The present Constitution played a major historical role by bringing about the dissemination of pacifist principles. It has, however, led to "one-nation pacifism," and it is not in tune with the current world situation.
>> We should first revise Article 96 and explore making constitutional revision a realistic possibility.
YAMAHANA Ikuo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> As a separate issue from the question of constitutional revision, the normative nature of the Constitution needs to be guaranteed. To that end, since the system of judicial review is not functioning adequately at present, we should introduce a Constitutional Court. The argument that such a Court would not be consistent with Japanese traditions and culture makes no sense to me. If a law is ruled unconstitutional, the Diet has the power to revise the Constitution, and it is this that makes the separation of powers dynamic.
>> Some people say that the Constitution should stipulate the duties of the people, but I doubt whether a specific act could thereby be made unconstitutional. I suspect that, instead, it would make the meaning of the standards more diffuse.
>> The laws accompanying the Constitution are inadequate. We need to consider a Law for Constitutional Redress, particularly with regard to social rights and the right to petition or sue the state for redress.
>> The existing Constitution was sanctioned and promulgated by the Emperor, and it seems inappropriate to criticize the Preamble as masochistic.
KATO Katsunobu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The public expects this Commission to take the next step toward revision, based on the discussions so far.
>> In the Constitution, we should incorporate not only provisions that derive from an opposition between state authority and the people, but also a vision for the nation.
>> The Report should be logical and easy for the public to understand.
FURUYA Keiji (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The Report should accurately reflect the Commission's debate, setting forth: (a) the role that the Constitution has played; (b) points that are no longer in tune with reality; (c) points that can/cannot be evaluated positively; (d) points that do/do not need revision. It should also show the numerical weighting of opinions.
>> In order to make the Commission's findings known to the public, we should prepare a digest version of the final Report together with the full text.
NAKATANI Gen (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> We need to continue the constitutional debate in order to dispel the public's anxiety about the future and answer their expectations toward politicians.
>> We should make this Commission permanent, securing adequate personnel, including both support staff and specialists, and strengthening its functions.
MIHARA Asahiko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The people chose Article 9 following Japan's defeat in the war, but the current times call for its revision.
>> The existing Constitution has contributed to welfare and peace at home, but it cannot deal with a host of international issues, such as environmental problems.
>> By revising the Constitution, we should play a part in creating an equitable international community, and we should pursue the romantic ideal of serving as a model to the other nations of the world, for example, by meeting the needs of the disadvantaged.
WATANABE Kozo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The Commission's members have discussed a vision for the nation in good faith, freely, and open-mindedly. Bringing the facts about the Commission's debate to public knowledge will enhance the Diet's prestige.
>> During the Diet's deliberations at the time of the Gulf War, I questioned the fact that the Constitution was being interpreted not by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice but by the Cabinet Legislation Bureau.
>> A national referendum law for constitutional amendments should be enacted during the current Diet session.
>> In order to defend the Constitution, we must make it capable of being defended.
AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)
>> It is very meaningful that the subcommittees of this Commission provided a forum for free discussion among members. Regrettably, however, little has been done to bring together the diffuse debate and arrive at a course of action.
>> The Report should state clearly that during five years of debate, many members expressed dissatisfaction with the existing Constitution and called for its revision.
>> After the Report is submitted, debate will begin anew. We should then devote about five years to listening to the views of the public as well as Members of the Diet.
KANO Michihiko (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> When we consider what kind of a nation and society we want Japan to be, we need to be aware of whether or not the existing Constitution is compatible with that vision.
>> The opaque nature of government decision-making and policy-making has been revealed. By changing the governance structure so that the people, not the bureaucracy, are in charge, we should create a readily understandable system which enables the people to break free of dependency on the state, to make their own decisions and to take responsibility for them.
>> We should rebuild the key structural elements of the nation to make it a truly independent democratic state. We should design a Constitution with a forward-looking vision, and not allow this process to end in mere constitutional debate.
DOI Takako (Social Democratic Party)
>> The fact that in this Commission the parties were allotted equal speaking time regardless of their number of seats is a positive point in terms of equality of opportunity.
>> It is a basic premise of the Diet's functioning that we abide by the agreed rules. It is simply unacceptable to change the Diet Law and turn this Commission into a place for revising the Constitution regardless of the fact that, when it was established, it was not empowered to submit bills, by agreement of a directors' meeting of the Standing Committee on Rules and Administration. I am opposed to reorganizing the Commission as a standing committee.
>> Hasty revision of the Constitution swept away by the prevailing mood or climate will not produce results in which the public can have faith.