Meeting Agenda
Matters relating to a national referendum system for constitutional amendment and the Constitution of Japan
A free discussion was held in light of the discussions by representatives of each political party and group on the national referendum system for constitutional amendment during the present Diet session.
Main points of initial round of comments by party representatives
KONDO Motohiko (Liberal Democratic Party)
Constitutional amendments are initiated with the concurring votes of two-thirds or more of all the members of each House of the Diet and are ratified through a national referendum, the results of which are binding. This fundamentally sets a national referendum for constitutional amendment apart from general national referendums. Therefore, general national referendums should be excluded from the discussions of this Committee.
> Regarding the minimum voting age in national referendums, this should be the same as the minimum voting age in public elections because both pertain to suffrage. Given the current international trends, there is no problem in lowering both voting ages. It has been argued that the minimum voting age in national referendums should be set at 20 in the main body of the law, and that the supplementary provisions of the law should stipulate that lowering the voting age is to be considered. This argument is worth considering.
> There is a close relation between how voters will indicate their approval or disapproval on the ballot and how "majority" is defined. The total number of persons who have unequivocally expressed their approval or disapproval should be used as the denominator in calculating majority.
TSUTSUI Nobutaka (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
> Article 96 does not preclude the simultaneous enactment of a national referendum system for constitutional amendment and a general national referendum system.
> Article 96 allows for the possibility of holding a national referendum simultaneously with a national election. As such, the Constitution implicitly implies that the voting age in both will be the same. I believe the minimum voting age in national referendums should be set at 18 and the voting age in national elections should be lowered to 18.
> Article 96 does not provide for wholesale revision of the Constitution. It should therefore be confirmed that constitutional amendment precludes the enactment of a totally new constitution. Voting in a national referendum for constitutional amendment should consist of voting separately on individual questions and not on a unified package of questions.
SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)
> Constitutional rigidity is guaranteed by the fact that initiation of an amendment requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses. I believe the Diet should confirm that this requirement shall be excluded from any form of amendment for the time being.
> In view of the rigidity of the Constitution, I believe it is desirable to limit constitutional amendment to two or three amendments per decade. Furthermore, I believe it is necessary to establish a permanent institution in the Diet, such as a "Deliberative Council on Constitutional Research," with a mandate to discuss constitutional amendments.
> While the two-thirds majority requirement should be maintained, some other method for the initiation of amendments should also be considered in the future, which would apply to amendments that are unlikely to be initiated by the Diet. An example would be the adoption of a unicameral legislature.
> Amendment of the three fundamental principles of the Constitution should be precluded, and these principles should be maintained into the future.
KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)
> When we consider the actions of the Liberal Democratic Party, it is clear that enactment of a law on a national referendum system for constitutional amendment is intended to pave the way for the amendment of Article 9.
> Some have argued that enactment of a law on a national referendum system for constitutional amendment is rendered necessary by the principle of popular sovereignty. However, a national referendum for constitutional amendment is not the only means by which the sovereignty of the people can be exercised. Popular sovereignty can also be expressed by opposing the initiation of an amendment by the Diet or by preventing the enactment of laws leading to constitutional amendment.
> Some have argued that discussions concerning a national referendum system should be carried out separately from discussions of constitutional amendment. I do not agree with this position. The forces that aim to revise the Constitution and are now hurrying the establishment of a national referendum law are the same forces that have created the condition in which it is impossible to discuss these two matters separately.
TSUJIMOTO Kiyomi (Social Democratic Party)
> The Constitution is not something that is revised every time a new administration takes office. Amendments cannot be carried forward without the full support of the people in whom sovereignty resides.
> Procedural law for constitutional amendment cannot be treated as a standard form of legislation that merely creates certain administrative procedures. Such law cannot be enacted without the full support and understanding of the people in whom sovereignty resides.
> The Social Democratic Party believes constitutional amendment to be unnecessary. But it is those who favor constitutional amendment that are called upon to adopt a stance of engaging in careful and thorough discussions of procedural law with the people in whom sovereignty resides.
> Constitutional amendment provides the people with an opportunity to select the manner in which they wish to live. Therefore, full and extensive participation of the people must be guaranteed in the process of amendment.
TAKI Makoto (People's New Party)
> In addition to a national referendum system for constitutional amendment, we should consider adopting a general national referendum system to be used in connection with the enactment of particularly important legislative bills. A national referendum system should be enacted as soon as possible because of issues such as the adoption of a do-shu system that might pertain to fundamental aspects of the Constitution.
> Regarding the introduction of a general national referendum system, the Netherlands has adopted an advisory referendum system because a binding referendum system was rejected. In addition to a national referendum system for constitutional amendment, we should consider introducing a general or advisory referendum system that would accord with the principles of parliamentary democracy.
Comments after the first round
HAYAKAWA Chuko (Liberal Democratic Party)
> Discussions of a national referendum law should be conducted in a fair and neutral manner, and should not be pivoted on partisan politics.
> A national referendum is a form of participation in the national political process, as are national elections. As such, the minimum voting age should be the same for both. There is a possibility for reducing the voting age to 18 in the future. But for now, the minimum voting age should be set at 20.
> Nearly sixty years after the promulgation of the Constitution, we can no longer brush aside the accusation that the failure to enact a national referendum law for constitutional amendment is tantamount to legislative nonfeasance. The law should be enacted as soon as possible.
> In the past, it often appeared that the Cabinet Legislation Bureau held a monopoly over constitutional interpretation. We should now create a permanent committee in the Diet with a mandate to examine the constitutionality of legislation.
TAKAICHI Sanae (Liberal Democratic Party)
> For the following reasons, "majority" in a national referendum for constitutional amendment should be defined as the majority of the valid ballots cast: (a) in elections, the standard of computation is the number of valid ballots cast, and not the total number of eligible voters; and, (b) abstention does not necessarily indicate disapproval, and there are no rational grounds for counting an abstention as a ballot cast in opposition.
> Regarding the method of balloting, combining certain related provisions under a unified package to be presented to the people for voting would be a realistic approach.
SHIBAYAMA Masahiko (Liberal Democratic Party)
> A national referendum law for constitutional amendment guarantees the right of the people to exercise their sovereign powers, and enactment of such a law is an urgent requirement.
> As indicated by the European experience, a general national referendum system can have a tremendous impact even if it is non-binding and advisory in nature. Therefore, we should exercise due caution in considering the introduction of such a system.
> If approval were indicated by drawing a circle on the ballot and disapproval were indicated by casting a blank ballot, the total number of valid ballots would closely approximate the total number of ballots cast. Hence, the denominator in "majority" should be the total number of ballots cast.
> In light of their obligation to respect and uphold the Constitution, certain restrictions should apply to campaigning in national referendums by civil servants.
> Regarding restrictions on the media, we should consider adopting a third-party monitoring body similar to France's Higher Council for the Audio-Visual Sector.
YOSHIDA Rokuzaemon (Liberal Democratic Party)
> I basically agree with the views expressed by Mr. KONDO. National referendums should be conducted exclusively for amending the Constitution. To facilitate the participation of as many people as possible, national referendums should be held simultaneously with national elections.
> We should act quickly to summarize our views on a national referendum law.
NAKANO Masashi (Liberal Democratic Party)
> A national referendum law gives popular sovereignty a concrete form. It is those political parties that advocate the preservation of the Constitution who are failing to make full use of the principles of the Constitution.
> I subscribe to the following positions: (a) it is inappropriate to conduct a national referendum for constitutional amendment simultaneously with national elections; (b) the minimum voting age should be 20; (c) voting on a unified package of amendments is acceptable; and, (d) in principle, campaigning in national referendums should be unrestricted and free.
> A national referendum law should be enacted as soon as possible, and we should move on to discussing constitutional amendments.
HIRAOKA Hideo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
> Failure to enact a national referendum system provided for under Article 96 is decried as legislative nonfeasance, while a local referendum system concerning special local laws as provided for under Article 95 has been left abandoned. I feel that there is something intentional here.
OMURA Hideaki (Liberal Democratic Party)
> We are bound to be criticized for lack of hard work unless we try hard to enact a procedural law for constitutional amendment.
> Considering the administrative burden of creating a separate registry of voters for national referendums and another for national elections, it would be justified to set the minimum voting age in national referendums at 20.
> Certain restrictions should apply to campaigning by civil servants, such as a prohibition on the use of official status.
> It is questionable whether some of the restrictions contained in the Public Officials Election Law, such as a ban on door-to-door canvassing, should be applied to national referendums. Parallel to discussions of restrictions on campaigning in national referendums, we should also discuss the easing of some restrictions contained in the Public Officials Election Law.
> As a rule, media reporting should not be subject to legal restrictions. The media should be left to regulate itself.
MORIMOTO Tetsuo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
> Some have argued that enactment of a procedural law for constitutional amendment is a preparatory step for constitutional amendment and that the process is not value neutral. Both arguments are off the mark. Similarly, it is not logical to oppose the enactment of a national referendum law on grounds that opinion polls show that the people do not wish the Constitution to be amended.
> The Constitution provides for the enactment of a national referendum law as a supplementary law to the Constitution. As such, it is desirable to proceed toward enactment while providing the public with accurate information.
FURUKAWA Motohisa (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
> In light of the fact that last year's general election was held as a type of national referendum, we should undertake an overall review of the system of general elections and consider the introduction of a general national referendum system as a supplementary system to indirect democracy.
> Considering the systems that exist in the European countries and contemporary conditions in Japan, a national referendum system for constitutional amendment should be enacted as a part of a larger scheme for a general national referendum system. Japan should start by first conducting a general national referendum.
KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)
> Supporting the initiation of a constitutional amendment implies demanding the holding of a national referendum. Therefore, someone who does not support the initiative is in no position to demand the holding of a national referendum. In other words, people who believe in the preservation of Article 9 are not in a position to seek enactment of a national referendum law. People who oppose the national referendum law do so because they oppose the amendment of Article 9.
> Legislative nonfeasance is a concept that relates to the Law Concerning State Liability for Compensation. A national referendum law does not exist because the people did not wish to amend the Constitution. There is no legislative nonfeasance here.
AICHI Kazuo (Liberal Democratic Party)
> The following two points from the lecture at a U.S. research institution have left a strong impression on me: Can Japan call itself a country under the rule of law if it continues to rely on constitutional revision through re-interpretation? It seems very strange that Japan cannot move forward in its discussions of a national referendum law for constitutional amendment. We should be aware that Japan's constitutional debate has attracted the attention of other advanced countries. We must achieve what we can be proud of as a nation under the rule of law.
TSUJIMOTO Kiyomi (Social Democratic Party)
> Regarding the absence of a national referendum law, many of the experts appearing before this Committee expressed the view that this in fact did not constitute legislative nonfeasance. This represents a choice made out of political wisdom, not political negligence.
> We must consider what it means to have a rigid constitution. The Constitution should be amended when and only when failure to amend a specific provision becomes the source of an insurmountable problem.
HANASHI Yasuhiro (Liberal Democratic Party)
(In connection with Mr. HIRAOKA's comment)
> Provisions for a local referendum system concerning special local laws as provided for under Article 95 of the Constitution already exist in the Local Autonomy Law. There is no legislative nonfeasance in this case.
(Comments)
> A national referendum law is for paying close attention to the voice of the people. The Diet is responsible for enacting such a law as soon as possible.
> The minimum voting age should be considered in relation to the possibility of lowering the age of majority.
> Given the long period of publicity in a national referendum, the three-month residency requirement for voter eligibility should be counted from the date on which the amendment is initiated. Persons prevented from participating in a national referendum due to this provision are responsible themselves.
> If separate voting on individual questions were to be adopted, balloting should allow for three choices: approval, disapproval and abstention.
> Regarding restrictions on campaigning in national referendums, provisions should be adopted for coordination with the Public Offices Election Law.
ITO Kosuke (Liberal Democratic Party)
> Various opinion polls show growing support for constitutional amendment. We should move quickly toward concluding our discussions of establishment of a procedural law.
> In light of the prevailing laws in many countries, the minimum voting age should be 18.
> Blank ballots and invalid ballots should not be included in the denominator when determining the majority of ballots cast.
> Because of the possibility of boycotts, minimum voter turnout provisions should not be enacted.
KATO Katsunobu (Liberal Democratic Party)
> The national referendum system for constitutional amendment and a general national referendum system are mutually independent and should be treated separately.
> The method of balloting will be determined by how the Diet decides to initiate an amendment. The Diet will have to decide whether the people will vote separately on individual questions or whether a number of related provisions will be grouped together.
> The minimum voting age should be 18.
> An abstaining vote should be interpreted to constitute a delegation of choice to those casting ballots either in favor or against an amendment. Therefore, an abstaining vote should not be included in the denominator when determining the majority of ballots cast.
EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
(In connection with Mr. HANASHI's comment)
> Regarding the three-month residency requirement for voter eligibility, there are those who may have to move twice for reasons beyond their control. It is problematic to prevent such persons from voting on the grounds that they themselves are responsible for their ineligibility. This matter should be considered further.
(In connection with Mr. KASAI's comment)
> The Democratic Party of Japan does not consider enactment of a national referendum law to be a preparatory step for constitutional amendment, and we have not come to any final conclusion on constitutional amendment. We are attempting to enact a national referendum law in order to have a neutral system in place in advance.
(Comment)
> In order to establish a broadly based consensus, we must avoid the kind of thinking that seeks to remove from participating in the discussion those who advocate different positions from one's own.
HIRAOKA Hideo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
(In connection with Mr. HANASHI's comment)
> Currently, the provisions of the Public Offices Election Law are applied mutatis mutandis to the special local referendum law. This should not be the case. It would be desirable to restructure the special local referendum law with the national referendum law in mind and for the provisions of the latter to apply mutatis mutandis to the former.
KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)
(In connection with Mr. AICHI's comment)
> Given the position of the United States, it would only be natural to cast doubt on any commitment to preserving Article 9. What is shameful is the prime minister's failure to show remorse for the war of aggression and to visit Yasukuni Shrine. Article 9 is highly regarded throughout the world.
> The Constitution has been re-interpreted to set up the Self-Defense Forces and dispatch them to Iraq. It is this situation that truly contradicts the principles of the rule of law.
(In connection with Mr. EDANO's comment)
> A national referendum law should be enacted only when the time has ripened for constitutional amendment. Fairness and neutrality are not the intent of the ongoing discussions. Rather, emphasis has been placed on how to lower the hurdle for constitutional amendment.
ISHIBA Shigeru (Liberal Democratic Party)
> Unless a national referendum law for constitutional amendment is enacted, the right of the people to express their will on constitutional amendment cannot be ensured. The Constitution is not an end unto itself. It is a means for securing the prosperity of the nation and the welfare of its people.
> The current Constitution has given rise to various problems and inexpediencies. For example, special caution must be exercised in the activities of the Self-Defense Forces to avoid violating the Constitution. Constitutional amendment is needed in order for Japan to realize UN-centered diplomacy.
> A national referendum system is needed as means of determining the will of the people.
YOSHIDA Rokuzaemon (Liberal Democratic Party)
> It is necessary to amend the Constitution in order to facilitate Japan's international contribution and to protect the interests of the nation and the people. This necessity is clearly indicated in the results of opinion polls.
AICHI Kazuo (Liberal Democratic Party)
> Participants in the lecture that I referred to earlier included foreign students and others, some of whom questioned the constitutionality of the Self-Defense Forces. The point is that it was not the official position of the United States that was being stated. Nevertheless, the views expressed included the following. We cannot understand why there is so much opposition to the idea of constitutional amendment itself. Revision through re-interpretation makes it more difficult to know how far the Self-Defense Forces can go in their activities.