Thirteenth Meeting

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Meeting Agenda

  1. Bill for Law Concerning Procedures for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan (presented by Mr. YASUOKA Okiharu and four others: House of Representatives Bill No. 30)
    Bill for Law Concerning Initiation Procedures and National Referendums for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan and Other Important Matters of State (presented by Mr. EDANO Yukio and three others: House of Representatives Bill No. 31)

    Comments were heard from the political parties concerning the two abovementioned bills, after which statements were made by the presenters.

  2. Continuation of examination while the Diet is not in session

    [1] With a majority of members voting in favor, the decision was made to petition the Speaker of the House of Representatives for continuation of examination concerning the two abovementioned bills, the national referendum system for amendment of the Constitution of Japan, and the Constitution of Japan, while the Diet was not in session.

    Parties voting in favor: Liberal Democratic Party, Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents, New Komeito, People's New Party and New Party Nippon and Group of Independents Parties voting against: Japanese Communist Party, Social Democratic Party

    [2] With a majority of members voting in favor, the decision was made to entrust matters related to approval of assignment of Committee members and request for attendance of informants to the Chairman in the event that continuation of examination is authorized when the Diet is not in session.

    Parties voting in favor: Liberal Democratic Party, Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents, New Komeito, People's New Party and New Party Nippon and Group of Independents Parties voting against: Japanese Communist Party, Social Democratic Party

  3. A brief speech was made by the Chairman.

Comments from representatives of each political party and group


Statements by presenters:

Main points of comments by representatives of each political party (in order of presentation)

AICHI Kazuo (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> The basic awareness underlying the deliberations on the two bills is the following: (a) enactment of a law concerning the national referendum system for constitutional amendment ensures the exercise of the right of the people as enactors of the Constitution, and gives concrete form to popular sovereignty; and, (b) procedures for the initiation of constitutional amendments and rules concerning national referendums should be systematically developed, and must be fair and impartial. I would like to confirm that a common understanding was established on these two points.

>> My personal opinion concerning the differences between the two bills is as follows. The national referendum law must exclusively be a law for the implementation of the provisions of Article 96. Whether or not a general and advisory national referendum system needs to be adopted should be considered in the course of discussing amendments to the Constitution.

>> It would be acceptable to set the minimum voting age at 18. However, I find no rational reason why the voting age in national elections for electing representatives should be different from the voting age in national referendums for making policy choices. The voting age issue should be delegated to discussions on the lowering of the voting age under the Public Offices Election Law and the lowering of the age of majority under the Civil Code.

>> Regarding the method of balloting, the Democratic Party of Japan has proposed that those favoring an amendment should mark their ballots with a circle, and those opposed should cast blank ballots. But a blank ballot can be taken to be an expression of a wide variety of views. Putting all of these views under the heading of opposition could result in artificially creating what appears to be the popular will.

>> The two bills are not opposing bills, nor are their differences insurmountable. As this is a quasi-constitutional law, I hope it will be supported by many parties and that the best law possible will be enacted.


SENGOKU Yoshito (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

>> A national referendum constitutes the most basic and direct expression of the will of the people with whom sovereignty resides. Deliberation upon the two bills in the Diet will contribute to the deepening of popular sovereignty. Extremes of politicization and partisan campaigning should be avoided. Instead, a consensus should be developed in the Diet on the positive significance of national referendums.

>> If a positive consensus is developed on the national referendum system, this will naturally lead to the conclusion that the scope of eligible voters should be widened and that media coverage and campaigning in national referendums should be free in principle. This outcome will prove the validity of the positions taken in the draft proposal of the Democratic Party of Japan.

>> Consider the attitudes taken by those supporting and those opposing enactment of a local referendum ordinance in Tokushima City for voting on construction of the Yoshino River dam. As in this case, people swing between promoting and opposing the national and local referendums depending on the subject matter of an initiative. This is the bad habit of politicizing issues. Instead of going the route of politicization, we should cling tenaciously to the simple and clear principle of creating a system in which the people and local residents make decisions on policies affecting the nation and their own localities. Japanese democracy is not so immature that we need worry whether the sovereign people are capable of making wise decisions in national referendums. We should believe with full confidence that enactment of a value-neutral national referendum law will add depth and breadth to democracy in Japan.


MASUYA Keigo (New Komeito)

>> It is my understanding that, as a result of earnest discussions, the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents have been able to reach a consensus on more than 90 percent of the individual issues contained in the bills.

>> I believe it would be desirable, as far as possible, for one bill to be jointly submitted by the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan. On the other hand, the fact that two separate bills were drafted by the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan has brought greater clarity to the debate concerning legislation for the national referendum system for the public.

>> In developing legislation for the national referendum system, we should proceed with the following principle foremost in mind. Our object should be the creation of rules that will allow participation in fair discussions from all positions on constitutional amendment, including "revision of the Constitution," "preservation of the Constitution," "creating a new Constitution," and "adding to the Constitution."

>> The national referendum law called for by Article 96 gives concrete form to popular sovereignty and is something that cannot be circumvented. The presentation of a bill to the current Diet for a national referendum law is also of historic importance.

>> The present Constitution of Japan is an excellent constitution and has contributed mightily to the peace and development of Japan. The three fundamental principles of popular sovereignty, respect for fundamental human rights and pacifism should be retained as immutable elements of the Constitution. I also believe that Article 9 has made an important contribution to peace and development in the postwar period. Therefore, New Komeito takes the following position, described as "adding to the Constitution." First, the three fundamental principles of the Constitution and Article 9 should be firmly upheld. Second, in response to the changing times, new provisions should be added to the Constitution.

>> We must develop a fair and impartial national referendum system that allows direct democracy to function fully while standing on the principle of indirect democracy, and thereby ensuring that the will and decision of the people is acted on correctly.


KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)

>> I must point out that it is highly unusual that discussions have started in this way on a bill that obviously will be tabled.

>> The presenters of the bill drafted by the ruling parties have stated that it is the responsibility of Members of the Diet to enact a procedural law for constitutional amendment. They have also argued that the Diet has been negligent in failing to enact such legislation in the past. However, opinion polls show that the majority of the people either oppose or call for greater caution in proceeding toward enactment of a procedural law for constitutional amendment. Moreover, all of the petitions that have been submitted to this Special Committee have echoed these same sentiments.

>> A procedural law for constitutional amendment was not enacted in the past simply because the people had no specific need for constitutional amendment.

>> It has been argued that the Constitution should perform the role of establishing behavioral norms for the people. Such an argument holds no currency, either historically or globally.

>> It has been argued that the goal here is to establish fair rules. But, in the final analysis, moving toward enactment of a procedural law for constitutional amendment in an environment where revision of the Constitution is being discussed is only intended to generate a groundswell for the revision of Article 9.

>> Establishment of a Constitution Examination Board represents nothing other than an effort to successively push forward the tide of constitutional revision.

>> It has been argued that enactment of a procedural law for constitutional amendment will give concrete form to popular sovereignty and will lead to the restoration of popular sovereignty. However, enactment of a law that conveniently serves the purposes of the forces of constitutional revision cannot be said to be lending concrete form to popular sovereignty.

>> The Daini Tokyo Bar Association, the Shinano Mainichi Shimbun and others have all expressed views favoring greater caution toward a procedural law for constitutional revision. Activities of the Meetings in Support of Article 9 have spread throughout Japan. Under these conditions, compliance with the will of the people dictates that these two bills that are juxtaposed and intertwined with the changing for the worse of Article 9 be rejected, and this Special Committee be dissolved at the closing of the current Diet session.


TSUJIMOTO Kiyomi (Social Democratic Party)

>> Both bills call for partial revision of the Diet Law. How can a single bill cover the procedures for direct expression of the popular will as well as internal procedures of the Diet? This will cause confusion in the respective positions of the legislature and the people in whom sovereignty is vested, and will pose a fundamental challenge to the constitutional framework.

>> According to the intent of Article 45 of the Diet Law, revision of the Diet Law comes under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules and Administration, and the correct administration of any such revision is to deliberate on it in the Committee on Rules and Administration. In order to create fair rules, it is imperative that impartial and precise procedures be followed in structuring the bill and in committee deliberations.

>> Many Diet Members are discussing the Constitution with no appreciation for its intent to apply limits to state power. Moreover, the deliberations in the June 1 plenary session of the Diet failed to exhibit even a modicum of awareness that we are deliberating upon legislation of extreme importance. I firmly believe that it is impossible to engage in proper discussions of the Constitution under these conditions.

>> The June 1 deliberations of the plenary session of the Diet revealed that no consensus existed on the significance and meaning of the Constitution even among the presenters of the two bills before us. It is impossible to enter into deliberations under these conditions. The two bills should be rejected, and the entire legislative branch should make every possible effort to create a deeper understanding and awareness of the Constitution.


TAKI Makoto (People's New Party and New Party Nippon and Group of Independents)

>> Needless to say, democracy is based on the principle of majority rule. The Condorcet Theorem states the following: "Assuming that the members of a society make, on average, the right choice with a probability exceeding 50 percent, then the probability that the right choice will be made through majority vote increases with the increase in the number of participants." As indicated by this theorem, all is predicated on ensuring a sufficient level of discussion. The same applies to discussions concerning a national referendum for constitutional amendment.

>> In the proposed bills, membership in a Public Relations Council and the allocation of free advertising to political parties are both based on the number of seats held in the Diet. On this point, some special consideration has been given to smaller parties. But from the perspective of ensuring that views both for and against an amendment are properly heard, these considerations are insufficient. Room remains for further deliberation on this point.

>> Even if the Constitution is amended, the meaning of these amendments will be lost if they are subjected to discretionary interpretation and application. One option would be to cope with this problem through a Constitutional Examination Board. However, it is unclear whether that would be enough to prevent the Cabinet from abusing its powers. This matter merits further consideration.

>> Great Britain always leaned toward restricting direct democracy, and a similar attitude was taken by the Netherlands. However, in recent years, both countries have introduced general and advisory national referendum systems. It is now time that we re-examined general and advisory national referendum systems.

>> Provisions concerning bribery and the prohibition of participation of civil servants in campaign activities should be further relaxed.

>> Continued efforts should be made to combine the bills of the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan into a single bill.


Main points of statements by presenters of the bills (in order of presentation)

YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> We have finally arrived at the point where two bills have been presented to the Diet for deliberation. There is great historical significance in bringing to an end nearly 60 years of failure to enact a procedural law for constitutional amendment.

>> Although in the end the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan presented separate bills, it is important to note the process leading to their presentation. The matter was deliberated upon in this Special Committee, was investigated by research missions sent abroad, and the points of issue were summarized in the directors' meeting. All parties, including the Japanese Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party, participated in this process, which featured more than 50 hours of deliberation. It is very important for us to continue to cherish and safeguard this process as we proceed to establish fair and impartial rules. We should endeavor to arrive at a consensus through the broadest possible range of discussion, which would include the active participation of the Japanese Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party.

>> The two bills are not opposing bills. In the forthcoming deliberations, the two bills should be used as a springboard for arriving at a final bill.

>> All parties are agreed on the following point: we must determine what constitutes fair and impartial rules as defined separately from the contents of any specific constitutional amendment. If anything is found to be lacking in the two bills, additional provisions should be appended to ensure the establishment of fair and impartial rules.

>> Written constitutions are never complete and amendment is rendered unavoidable by the changing times. This is the fate of all written constitutions. Nearly 60 years have passed since the end of the war, and it is only natural for us to engage in discussions of constitutional amendment. There is no better time to deliberate upon enactment of a procedural law than now when no specific proposal for constitutional amendment stands before the Diet.

>> The establishment of a public relations council for constitutional amendment, which was proposed by the Democratic Party of Japan, and the elimination of restrictions on the media came to be included in both bills. These are excellent evidences of the process we have been engaged in. In the deliberation of the two bills at the next session of the Diet, I hope the same kind of results will be gained from earnest discussions among members of this Special Committee.


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

>> Should any suspicions be cast on the outcome of a national referendum, that could well become the suicide of constitutionalism in Japan. Therefore, we have been given the epochal responsibility of establishing fair and impartial system that all parties, whether in favor of or opposed to constitutional revision, will find acceptable.

>> What is required of us as we endeavor to establish a fair and impartial system? Both those in favor of and those opposed to constitutional revision must muster the honesty and humility to place themselves in the position of the opposite camp when engaging in discussions. As we proceed to craft the system, those favoring constitutional revision should keep in mind what their own situation will be if, sometime in the future, they become the minority in the Diet.

>> Those opposed to constitutional revision have claimed that the great majority of the people do not desire the Constitution to be amended. The obvious way to prove this claim is to submit this question to a national referendum. We must establish a fair and impartial system to ensure that the will of the people is accurately reflected in such national referendums.

>> Even though we are presenters of the bill, we do not think that the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan is perfect. The issues that remain are essential, albeit technical issues. From here onward, we will be trying to reach agreement on these remaining issues. In light of the fact that the national referendum law differs in its characteristics from other laws, we need not be bound by the conventional methods of examination of legislative bills. For instance, in examining the national referendum law, I believe it would be acceptable to have scholars and experts question the presenters.

>> There needs to be a public consensus and agreement on the "fairness and impartiality" of the national referendum system. In order to establish that consensus, this Special Committee must muster the effort and wisdom to consult on amendments to the bills.