Meeting Agenda
Matters relating to a national referendum system for constitutional amendment and the Constitution of Japan
A decision was made, after consultation, to hear opinions from informants on the above matters.
A free discussion was held on the basis of the arguments presented by representatives of each party and group on the national referendum system for constitutional amendment during the present Diet session.
Main points of initial round of comments by representatives of each party
YASUI Junichiro (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> We do appreciate that the lives and safety of the Japanese people have been protected under the present Constitution. On the other hand, we should be concerned about the gap between current realities and the Constitution created by expansive constitutional interpretation.
>> Regarding the details of the national referendum law, we advocate the following: (a) the voting age should be the same as the voting age in public elections; (b) while excessive restrictions should not be applied to the media, special attention should be paid to the treatment of the Internet; (c) balloting should be conducted on individual questions; (d) the only matters to be indicated on the ballot should be approval or disapproval; (e) "majority" should be defined to mean the majority of valid ballots cast; and (f) a minimum voter turnout requirement should not be adopted.
>> Failure to enact a national referendum law for the expression of the popular will is questionable from the perspective of the principle of popular sovereignty. The time has come for this Special Committee to deliberate upon a bill.
IWAKUNI Tetsundo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> According to public opinion polls, about 60 percent of the people feel that constitutional amendment is necessary. To allow people who experienced the war to express their views, a national referendum law should be enacted as soon as possible and a national referendum undertaken.
>> Even if the wording of the present Constitution is not changed, the public should be given a chance to participate in a national referendum to engender a feeling that they have had a part in enacting the Constitution.
>> If we are going to discuss love for the country, we should also discuss love for the Constitution.
ISHII Keiichi (New Komeito)
>> Most countries in the world have established 18 as the voting age. We should adopt a minimum voting age of 18 for national referendums and lower the age of majority and voting age in public elections to 18.
>> As society continues to age and the birth rate declines, the percentage of elderly voters will increase while the percentage of young voters declines. Young people, who will be shouldering the burden of an aging society with declining birth rates, should be given a voice in politics.
>> Low turnout among young voters is given as a reason for opposing the lowering of the voting age. However, lowering the voting age may instead serve to heighten political awareness.
>> The voting age should be discussed apart from all partisan positions and interests.
KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)
>> It has been argued that enactment of a national referendum law will give concrete form to popular sovereignty. This argument for popular sovereignty is unconvincing when we consider the recent flyer distribution cases in Tachikawa City and Katsushika Ward where suppression of the freedom of expression has not been rectified.
>> It has been argued that there is a contradiction in advocating the preservation of the Constitution while opposing enactment of a national referendum law. However, constitutional amendment is being advocated by the political parties, not the public. From the perspective of the principle of pacifism, the draft constitution of the Liberal Democratic Party attempts to turn back the hand of time. The national referendum law is intended to set the stage for such amendments. Therefore, from our position of preserving the Constitution, it is obvious and natural that we should oppose enactment of such a law.
>> It has been argued that if we were to follow the principle of UN-centeredness, the Constitution must be amended to allow for the right of collective self-defense. However, the right of collective self-defense provided for under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations is an exception to the principle of peaceful resolution of disputes advocated in this Charter. We must also be mindful of the fact that the right of collective self-defense has been used as an excuse for aggression. Therefore, the Constitution should not be amended to allow for collective self-defense, and Japan should participate in UN activities through peaceful means.
TSUJIMOTO Kiyomi (Social Democratic Party)
>> Some have argued that other countries say that Japan is not a nation under the rule of law but one given to taking extra-legal measures. This situation has been created by successive administrations under the Liberal Democratic Party. Having created this situation themselves, they are now arguing that the Constitution must be amended to resolve the problem. This is an illogical argument.
>> The Constitution is being discussed in the presence of such contradictions. Sound discussion cannot be hoped for in this environment and there is no need to make haste in enacting a national referendum law for constitutional amendment. What is required is careful debate.
TAKI Makoto (People's New Party)
>> I appreciate the argument that a national referendum law should not be enacted in an environment where full settlement of the past remains unaccomplished. However, I believe we must resolve the problem of relying wholly on interpretation to revise the constitutional framework.
>> Sixty years have passed since the Constitution came into force. We need to hear the people's views on whether the Constitution should be revised or preserved. In this sense, a national referendum system must be established as soon as possible.
>> Regarding legal contestation of the results of a national referendum, individual complaints will not affect the overall outcome of a referendum. Therefore, it is not necessary to develop detailed rules concerning complaints to be filed. On the other hand, should not some guideline be contained in the law to help judge how many complaints need to be filed before commencing contestation procedures?
Comments after the first round
TOKAI Kisaburo (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I cannot understand the argument that there is no immediate need to enact a national referendum law. The form of the Constitution must ultimately be determined by the people. It is the responsibility of the legislature to enact a national referendum law that provides the necessary means for this process.
>> The argument that the national referendum law must be carefully debated is worthy of consideration. However, we are already in the final stages of summarizing the points of argument. This process should be completed as soon as possible and the law should be enacted during the current session of the Diet.
>> A minimum voter turnout requirement should be adopted. Boycotts can be averted through campaigning by both sides, those against and those in favor of a proposed amendment. If a proposed amendment attracts a boycott, that in itself is an indication that there is something wrong with the proposal.
SHIBAYAMA Masahiko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Some have argued that current conditions that are in violation of the Constitution should be rectified to bring them into line with the ideals of the Constitution. My response to this is: Many advanced countries have repeatedly amended their constitutions. Does that mean that their constitutions are devoid of any ideals? Furthermore, constitutional amendment is a channel for the exercise of sovereignty.
>> Apart from the question of when the Constitution should be amended, it is clear that a large part of public opinion favors amendment.
>> Regarding how ballots should be marked, blank ballots should be treated as votes of disapproval. There is the criticism that this takes away the freedom to abstain at the voting booths. But this problem can be resolved by having separate ballots for separate questions, and by having a multiple number of voting dates.
>> Regarding suits filed for the nullification of referendum results, there is no need to establish a system for the suspension of coming into force. On the other hand, it should be discussed fully, including such matters as the future effectiveness of nullification rulings (non-retroactivity of a nullification ruling).
AICHI Kazuo (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Some have argued that the Constitution absolutely must not be amended, and re-interpretation of the Constitution should be used to deal with it. This position lacks an awareness of what is required of politicians, and that the role of politics is to respond to changes in the world and in society.
>> Some people do not want to change the Constitution, but that is not necessarily the view of the majority. Recent opinion polls show that 60 percent of the people favor amending the Constitution.
TAKAICHI Sanae (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Absence of a national referendum law robs the people of the right to exercise their subjective judgment and is contrary to the principle of popular sovereignty.
>> In the discussions of the Research Commission on the Constitution, the view that the current Constitution was forced upon Japan by the United States was not necessarily the majority view. However, it is the natural right of the people to create their own constitution.
>> If we continue to be bound by a constitution that does not reflect the contemporary reality and to deal with it solely through re-interpretation, this will undermine the stability of the law.
>> Obsessing over Article 9 can lead to denying the people their right to amend the detailed wording of the Constitution. This is an undesirable outcome.
HIRAOKA Hideo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> A local referendum under the special local laws as provided for under Article 95 was held for the last time in 1951 and has never since been invoked. This system appears to have become a dead letter and should be investigated by this Committee.
>> A local referendum under the special local laws has the characteristics of direct democracy and is similar to the national referendum system for constitutional amendment. Therefore, the two systems should be alike and consistent in terms of minimum voting age, restrictions on campaign activities and the definition of majority. Parallel to our discussions of a national referendum system for constitutional amendment, we should undertake a review of the local referendum system.
IWAKUNI Tetsundo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
(In connection with comments by Ms. TSUJIMOTO)
>> Reference was made to "nation under the rule of law." The reality of the matter is that Japan is a "nation under the rule of neglect" because for 60 years we have neglected to ask the most important question for popular sovereignty: Do the people approve or disapprove of the Constitution?
(Comment)
>> The people were never given an opportunity to express their approval or disapproval of the present Constitution. It is necessary for the people to enact their own Constitution which they can be proud of. For this purpose, it is imperative that a national referendum law be enacted as soon as possible.
ISHIBA Shigeru (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> While I do not believe that the results of public opinion polls are necessarily correct, according to a poll conducted by the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper, the majority of the people are in favor of establishing the necessary procedures for constitutional amendment. I think that each political party should also undertake opinion polls.
>> The gap between the Constitution and current realities should be rectified by amending the Constitution.
(In connection with comments by Mr. IWAKUNI)
>> We should act swiftly while those who experienced the war are still able to express their views. Politicians must take the leadership in presenting to the public the problems that require constitutional amendment.
(In connection with comments by Mr. KASAI)
>> It was argued that the national referendum system for constitutional amendment provided for under Article 96 does not need to be enacted. I would like to receive an explanation of how this position can be consistent with the principle of popular sovereignty.
>> Mr. KASAI argued that the Constitution should not be amended to
allow for the right of collective self-defense because the right of collective
self-defense has been used as an excuse for aggression. I am opposed to
this argument.
SONODA Yasuhiro (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Regarding the minimum voting age, I believe the people should be guaranteed the right to express their opinions broadly under the principle of popular sovereignty. From this perspective, I believe we should consider making a political decision to lower the voting age from 20, while paying due attention to consistency with the Public Offices Election Law and other legal systems.
>> Regarding restrictions on the media, I suggest that we experiment once with no restrictions placed on spot commercials.
HANASHI Yasuhiro (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Under the Japanese legal system, various laws contain their own age-related rules and provisions. It has been argued that the voting age should be lowered to 18, but in fact there are no specific grounds that would justify choosing 18 as the minimum age. Even if for practical reasons we adopt 20 as the voting age, the Diet should be responsible for examining the consistency of age-related rules and provisions of various laws.
>> Regarding the "three-month requirement" related to the preparation of the registry of voters, a certain amount of time will be needed between the initiation of a constitutional amendment and the voting date. In consideration of this fact, a system should be devised to allow persons who have moved twice or more during this three-month period to vote in their original place of residence.
HAYAKAWA Chuko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The people should be given an opportunity to obtain their own constitution in a true sense. For this purpose, the national referendum system should not be bound by the provisions of the Public Offices Election Law. The national referendum law should have its own provisions based on respect for the freedom of expression and freedom of political activity.
>> Regarding restrictions on the media, general rules and regulations such as the Radio Law and the Broadcast Law and prohibitions against false reporting will suffice.
>> The law on national referendum for constitutional amendment does not need to include provisions concerning the participation in national referendum campaign activities by educators and civil servants in their official capacities. We should consider applying the provisions of other laws to this matter.
>> Two separate laws will have to be enacted concerning constitutional amendment procedures. The first would apply to the initiation of an amendment proposal, and the second would apply to national referendum procedures.
TSUJIMOTO Kiyomi (Social Democratic Party)
>> The initiation of a constitutional amendment requires the approval of two-thirds or more of all the Members of both Houses of the Diet. The intent of this provision should be understood to be the prevention of the tyranny of the majority.
>> Neither of the arguments that the "Constitution should be revised to bring it into line with reality" and the "ruling parties formulated the policies that created the gap between the Constitution and reality" is sound. We need to consider what constitutional provisions are needed to realize our respective visions.
>> Article 9 Paragraph 2 of the Liberal Democratic Party's draft constitution states that detailed provisions concerning a self-defense army will be specified separately under law. Hence, at the present time, we have no idea what these details will be. This has the potential of removing the brakes at two levels: revision of Article 9 and the enactment of new laws.
TANAHASHI Yasufumi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Constitutional amendment should be considered with due care. However,
the national referendum system for constitutional amendment is based on
the amendment procedures provided for in the Constitution itself. Arguments
that "enactment now is unnecessary" and "enactment is aimed
at constitutional revision" are unconvincing.
NAKANO Masashi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The results of the Yomiuri Shimbun's April 4, 2006 public opinion poll show that 69 percent favor enactment of a procedural law for constitutional amendment and 7 percent oppose enactment. In light of these results and other circumstances, I believe we have come to a point where we must show some concrete achievements in terms of a national referendum system.
HAYASHI Jun (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The extensive discussions of a national referendum law are approaching a point of convergence. But this law is merely a procedural law for constitutional amendment and should be discussed separately from the actual contents of constitutional amendments.
>> In light of the fact that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the scope of voter eligibility in national referendums should be the same as that for national elections. If we intend to set the minimum voting age at 18, this should be discussed in tandem with lowering the voting age under the Public Offices Election Law. In the course of those discussions, we should also consider the possibility of defining the minimum voting age based on the school year.
>> A national referendum has a greater public aspect to it than national elections, which are for electing specific individuals. Hence, campaign activities in national referendums should, as a rule, be free and unrestricted.
>> To respond to the trust placed in us by the people, we must rise above partisanship to summarize our discussions and to enact a procedural law for constitutional amendment.
KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)
>> The constitutional amendment procedures stipulated under Article 96 are not intended to be used in asking the people whether they approve or disapprove of the present Constitution.
>> A national referendum system has not been enacted 60 years after the establishment of the Constitution not because of negligence on the part of the Diet but rather because many people supported the position of preserving the Constitution. We should call to mind the historical developments related to the proposal of the Home Affairs Agency that was rescinded on the grounds that enactment of a national referendum system would lead to the revision of Article 9.
>> What do we need to do now to give concrete form to the principle of popular sovereignty? Enactment of a national referendum system is not the answer. What we must do is to review those factors in the existing legal system that are effectively restricting the exercise of sovereignty by the people.
(In connection with comments by Mr. SHIBAYAMA)
>> Foreign countries have revised their constitutions as a matter of popular choice and in line with their own unique historical experiences. Hence, there is no sense in simply imitating other countries.
(In connection with comments by Mr. ISHIBA)
>> Due caution must be exercised in considering the results of opinion polls because the results can be significantly affected by polling methods and other factors.
OCHI Takao (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The people must adopt their own constitution. Therefore, even if no changes are made in the text, the Constitution should be subjected to a national referendum. This is necessary for the sake of the legitimacy of the Constitution.
>> The national referendum law is a procedural law and stands apart from the content of any amendment. It is necessary to design the national referendum system carefully and from a neutral position.
>> Should balloting be conducted on individual questions or on a unified package of questions? The balloting method can place certain restrictions on the content of the proposed amendment. To avoid this problem, some room should be left for the possibility of voting on a unified package of questions.
>> The choice of balloting method should be left to the decision of the Diet.
>> The following case can be made for retaining a unified package approach to balloting. Public opinion will have gelled in the process of initiating an amendment in the Diet. The national referendum system will continue to be used throughout the future. In light of these two considerations, available balloting methods should be flexible enough to cope with a wide variety of amendments.
OSAKA Seiji (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Procedural law for a national referendum system should be enacted from a neutral position and apart from the content of any amendment.
>> As these discussions proceed, I sense there is a growing atmosphere that constitutional amendment is a foregone conclusion. This is highly problematic. On the other hand, it is also problematic that so many people are totally uninterested. We should consider how to generate greater interest in the public. Failing this, even if a national referendum law is enacted, the results of a national referendum would lack the assurance of legitimacy.
SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito)
>> Regarding the marking of ballots, I wish to state that in the discussions of our party the view was expressed that disapproval of an amendment should be indicated solely by marking an X on the ballot.
>> Last week, Ms. TSUJIMOTO stated that, in light of the rigidity of the Constitution, amendments should be avoided as far as possible. However, the rigidity of the Constitution and avoiding amendments as far as possible are two separate and unrelated issues. It is important to amend the Constitution in accordance with the will of the people, while preserving the consistency of the legal system.