Meeting Agenda
Matters related to a national referendum system for constitutional amendment and the Constitution of Japan
It was decided, after discussion, to request the attendance of informants.
A free discussion was held in light of the discussions of the Research Commission on the Constitution, with particular reference to the national referendum system.
Main points of comments by Chairman NAKAYAMA
>> Discussions on the Constitution have finally moved forward from "research for the sake of research" to a "new stage."
>> One of the important issues discussed in the Research Commission on the Constitution was the development of a national referendum system for constitutional amendment, which has not been enacted in the nearly sixty years since the promulgation of the Constitution of Japan. On this point, the Final Report of the Research Commission on the Constitution states the following: "Many were of the opinion that a constitutional amendment procedure law should be legislated as soon as possible."
>> In the course of the discussions undertaken in preparation of this Final Report, Deputy Chairman EDANO made the following historically weighty statement. Regardless of what party it may be, any party intent on becoming the ruling party must contribute to the development of a consensus to the effect that certain common rules pertaining to national government administration should be established in the Constitution. Regarding the national referendum law for constitutional amendment, it is desirable to legislate on this matter at an early date with the broad support of the Diet. Supporting statements were made by Director YASUOKA (Liberal Democratic Party), Director Funada (Liberal Democratic Party) and Member OTA (New Komeito).
>> In line with these developments, this Special Committee for Research on the Constitution of Japan was formed with a mandate to "conduct broad and comprehensive research on the Constitution of Japan," and to "examine proposals concerning a national referendum system for the amendment of the Constitution of Japan."
>> The Research Commission on the Constitution discussed the following matters concerning a national referendum system for constitutional amendment: (a) scope of those eligible to vote in a national referendum; (b) whether a national referendum should entail voting on individual questions or a unified package of questions; (c) period and methods of publicity; (d) restrictions on campaigning in referendums; (e) presentation of the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot; (f) definition of "majority" in national referendums; (g) pros and cons of holding a national referendum simultaneously with a national election; and, (h) legal action for nullification of the results of a national referendum.
>> Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to observe national referendums undertaken for the ratification of the EU Constitutional Treaty in France, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Considering the impact that these referendums had on the ratification process of the EU Constitution, I could not help but be impressed by the tremendous significance of national referendums that directly determine the course of nations. In the countries that I observed, persons aged 18 or older were eligible to vote. In any case, the examples of these countries will provide us with important reference points in developing Japan's national referendum system.
>> The development of a national referendum system for constitutional amendment will give concrete shape to the "principle of the sovereignty of the people," the fundamental principle of the Constitution. It is no exaggeration to say that it is a task of the Diet, as representative of the people, to restore the sovereignty of the people in regard to constitutional enactment and amendment which has been blocked for sixty long years. By carrying out this task, we can expect to promote in the people an awareness of the immediacy of their participation in the constitutional debate and to broaden the constitutional debate into a truly national debate.
Main points of initial round of comments by representatives of each party
YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Article 96 stipulates the procedures for constitutional amendment and foreshadows the enactment of procedural laws concerning constitutional amendment. The fact that such a national referendum law for constitutional amendment has not been legislated in the sixty years since the promulgation of the Constitution may well be termed "legislative nonfeasance." Our awareness should be that a national referendum law for constitutional amendment would be the embodiment of the principle of the sovereignty of the people. I wish to reiterate that the Final Report of the Research Commission on the Constitution states that many views were expressed in support of early enactment of such a law.
>> The fact that Article 96 requires the concurring vote of two-thirds or more of all the members of each House can be taken to mean that the Constitution plans for consensus-building that transcends party lines. While a national referendum law for constitutional amendment would take the form of an ordinary law, in reality it would constitute a law ancillary to the Constitution. Therefore, it would be desirable for the pertinent bill to be submitted in a manner that transcends party lines, such as submission by the Chairman of this Special Committee. The ruling parties have already prepared the outline of a bill for a national referendum system for constitutional amendment. This should be viewed as no more than one of many reference materials before us. I believe it would be best for us to make a zero-base start and to gradually develop the Committee's own proposals on this matter.
>> Regarding the main points of contention concerning a bill for a national referendum system for constitutional amendment, my personal views are as follows. (a) Regarding the question of whether referendums should be held simultaneously with national elections, I believe the two should be separate because a national referendum on constitutional amendment transcends party lines, while a national election presents an arena in which choices are made on who will take the reins of government. (b) Regarding the scope of eligibility to vote, national elections and national referendums represent opportunities of equal importance in the exercise of the right to participate in national government. It is difficult to imagine a difference between the two, and the task of creating two different registries of voters will involve various practical difficulties. Therefore, I believe eligibility to vote in referendums should be the same as for national elections. (c) Regarding whether a referendum should entail voting on individual questions or a unified package of questions, the matter reverts to the logical question of what constitutes an indivisible issue. As the Constitution mandates the Diet to develop proposals that appropriately reflect the content of a proposed amendment, due thought should be given to establishing certain standards on this matter. (d) Regarding restrictions on campaigning in referendums, there is a clear difference between the intent of national elections, which are for electing representatives, and referendums, which are for making policy choices. Restrictions should be adopted to prevent the dissemination of false information and illegal voting. The provisions of the Public Offices Election Law should be taken into consideration in designing minimum necessary restrictions on campaigning in referendums. This matter should be duly examined in the future.
EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> In reality, this Committee is a successor to the Research Commission on the Constitution and shares the same foundation. While maintaining the basic framework of the Research Commission, I find it regrettable that the mandate of this Special Committee does not formally conform to the recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Research Commission, which stated that it would be desirable to empower this Special Committee to deliberate upon and draft bills pertaining to constitutional amendment procedures.
>> If we cannot agree on constitutional amendment procedures in our discussions, we certainly will not be able to agree on the specific content of constitutional amendments. While avoiding undue haste, we must engage in earnest discussions culminating, as soon as possible, in a broad agreement on a constitutional amendment procedure law.
>> Campaigning in constitutional amendment referendums represents a political activity protected under the Constitution. Not only that, campaigning is fundamental to the democratic form of government and should be engaged in freely and openly. Referendums involve policy choices and are unlike elections in which votes are cast for competing candidates. In the case of referendums, campaigning cannot be easily distinguished from expressions of a certain political intent. If legal restrictions are applied, enforcement of these restrictions will devolve upon the police and judicial authorities. This will have a very strong restraining effect.
>> Once a constitutional amendment is ratified, that amendment will remain with us for decades to come. Therefore, due consideration must be given to expanding the scope of eligibility as much as possible to include the younger generations, citizens living abroad, and those whose civil rights have been suspended.
>> On the issue of voting on individual questions or a unified package of questions, we should consider how to maximize the people's freedom of choice. If a unified package of questions appears on the same ballot, an initiative may be rejected because voters oppose just one of the questions. In other words, we must take into account the possibility that an amendment supported by a majority of the public may be rejected.
>> When deliberating upon a proposed constitutional amendment, we should not adopt the same method as ordinary bills where one party drafts the bill and the other parties propose revisions. Instead, a joint-drafting committee of the upper and lower Houses should be formed to perform this function.
>> A large part of the public is not even aware that constitutional amendment requires a national referendum. Public education and public relation programs will be very important.
AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)
>> After five years of discussion by the Research Commission on the Constitution, this Special Committee for Research on the Constitution has been formed to deliberate upon a procedural law for constitutional amendment. I believe this to be a very timely move. The deliberations of this Special Committee represent "stage two" in the constitutional debate. When this Committee completes its deliberations on a procedural law, we should not immediately proceed to "stage three" where a standing committee is mandated to deliberate upon specific amendments. Instead, as a preparatory step, a research commission should be formed to discuss each individual issue article by article. This task should proceed with the consent of all political parties and should be given plenty of time.
>> Failure to enact a national referendum law for constitutional amendment should not be viewed as legislative nonfeasance. Rather, in my view, Japan needed sixty years before it could engage in constitutional debate in a calm environment. I would add that the enactment of a national referendum law for constitutional amendment would not take away from us a calm environment for constitutional debate.
>> Probably the most important issue to be resolved in drafting a national referendum law for constitutional amendment concerns the scope of questions to be posed in a ballot. Some problems are unsuited to voting as a unified package. On the other hand, the public may be overburdened by a very large number of individual questions, leading to a drop in referendum participation. From this perspective as well, I believe the method of "adding to the Constitution" is advantageous, as this method will allow the ballot to be focused on a small number of critical questions.
>> When an amendment has been initiated by the Diet, it will be important to thoroughly educate the public on the matter. I believe it will be necessary to inform the public of what will happen if the Constitution is amended, what will happen if it is not amended, and that there are various interpretations of the existing Constitution.
>> Regarding other matters related to national referendums, I do not think that there is much disagreement on the following. (a) a referendum should be undertaken alone, separate from national elections. (b) "Vote of a majority" should be simply interpreted as the majority of valid votes cast, and other conditions pertaining to voting ratios should not be adopted. I believe there is some room for choice on the minimum age of voters and the length of the publicity period. Regarding campaigning in national referendums, regulations should be put in place to prevent forcible voting, such as bribery and intimidation, as well as infringement of public order and ethics, such as the dissemination of false claims and information. Other than that, our deliberations should be focused on ensuring the freedom of campaigning.
KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)
>> The mandating of this Special Committee to deliberate upon a national referendum bill for constitutional amendment can be said to be intended to prepare the stage for the revision of Article 9 as found in the proposals of the Liberal Democratic Party and the Democratic Party of Japan. The Japanese Communist Party opposed the creation of this Special Committee. However, now that it has been formed, we shall participate in the Special Committee with the purpose of broadly propagating the principles of peace contained in the Constitution of Japan, both domestically and abroad.
>> The Final Report of the Research Commission on the Constitution has been cited by some as providing grounds for this Special Committee to deliberate upon a national referendum bill for constitutional amendment. However, the purpose of the Research Commission was to "conduct broad and comprehensive research on the Constitution of Japan," and it was not at any time mandated to reach conclusions on constitutional amendment or to develop a legislative bill on a national referendum for constitutional amendment. Therefore, the majority views contained in the Final Report of the Research Commission cannot be cited as sufficient grounds.
>> Failure to enact a national referendum law for constitutional amendment has been referred to as "legislative nonfeasance." However, true "legislative nonfeasance" is to be found in the failure to enact certain laws pertaining to legal action against the government for compensation and restitution, which has allowed the unabated infringement of the rights of the people. The general consensus among constitutional scholars is that the former does not constitute "legislative nonfeasance."
>> Sovereignty of the people does not pertain solely to the right to enact a constitution. The argument that the failure to legislate a national referendum law for constitutional amendment circumscribes the sovereignty of the people in fact only serves to diminish the sovereignty of the people. A national referendum law for constitutional amendment was not enacted in the past because the people did not consider enactment to be necessary. The current move to create a national referendum law for constitutional amendment is linked with the move to revise Article 9. Viewed from the opposite perspective, if discussions of such a law are really unrelated to specific attempts at constitutional revision, then such discussions are meaningless.
>> Revision of Article 9 along the lines of the Liberal Democratic Party's constitutional amendment proposal goes beyond affirmation of the current situation and removes the brakes that prevent Japan from engaging in overseas wars. Article 9 constitutes Japan's pledge of pacifism and Japan's international promise of peace made to the countries of Asia and the world. To tear up and discard this pledge will have an untold negative impact on international trust in Japan. Article 9, and the contributions to international peace based on it, are highly significant. Its significance derives from ensuring lasting peace in Japan, and is also internationally significant in its linkages to the UN Charter.
TSUJIMOTO Kiyomi (Social Democratic Party)
>> The Constitution defines the limits of and the procedures for the exercise of state power. This Special Committee should be managed in light of this principle.
>> Before revising the Constitution to include specific provisions for such new concepts as environmental rights and the right to know, existing laws and policies should be thoroughly examined. At the present stage, I do not feel the need for any immediate amendment of the Constitution. Likewise, I do not feel the need to act hastily to enact a procedural law for constitutional amendment.
>> We should once again examine how Japan can involve itself in the various conflicts that occur around the world and verify how Article 9 can be used in this context. Japan should make the very somber choice of actively contributing to the establishment of peace from the perspective of the principles of pacifism contained in the Constitution of Japan.
>> When deliberating upon a procedural law for national referendums for constitutional amendment, we will need to constantly hark back to the question of whether constitutional amendment is necessary or not. A procedural law should not be discussed apart from the discussion of amendments.
>> Constitutional amendments, by nature, should be undertaken in response to strong demands voiced by the people to the Diet and government. We find ourselves today in the opposite situation: the Diet and the government are pressing the people on constitutional revision. In light of this situation, the absence of legislation on a national referendum law for constitutional amendment cannot be labeled "legislative nonfeasance."
>> I do not believe we should act hastily to enact a national referendum law for constitutional amendment. However, if we are to deliberate on this law, I wish to state my position as follows. (a) Regarding voting on individual questions or a unified package of questions, we should opt for voting on individual questions. (b) Regarding the scope of voter eligibility, it is worth considering the view that participation in referendums be extended to all persons old enough to have completed compulsory education. (c) Regarding restrictions on campaigning in national referendums, measures should be taken to ensure free debate and discussion. (d) Due caution must be exercised in deliberating on voting methods and conditions for ratification.
TAKI Makoto (People's New Party)
>> Amendment of the Constitution of Japan is subject to severe and difficult requirements. Therefore, I do not believe that enactment of a national referendum law for constitutional amendment will become immediately linked to constitutional revision. I stand in favor of the enactment of this procedural law because such a law will provide the people with concrete opportunities for the exercise of their sovereignty as opposed to the abstract right that the people have as the source of sovereign power.
>> My position on national referendums for constitutional amendment is as follows. (a) A referendum should not be undertaken simultaneously with national elections. (b) Regarding voting on individual questions or a unified package of questions, as a rule, I favor voting on individual questions. However, voting on a unified package should be adopted if the proposed amendment covers nearly all of the passage or article in question. Decisions on this matter should be left to the Diet. (c) Regarding restrictions on campaigning in national referendums, as a rule, restrictions should not apply. We should consider dealing with campaign excesses through warnings issued by a "supervisory commission."
>> A "drafting committee" or something similar to that should be formed to undertake the actual task of drafting a national referendum law for constitutional amendment.
>> Regarding how to publicize, we should refer to existing practices in foreign countries.
Comments after the first round
YOSHIDA Rokuzaemon (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Regarding simultaneous undertaking of national referendums on constitutional amendment and national elections, I believe the two should be held on different days.
>> The debate on constitutional reform has advanced to its present stage as a result of Chairman NAKAYAMA's willingness to put his life on the line for this undertaking. Therefore, I wish to express my deepest respect for Chairman NAKAYAMA and his efforts.
IWAKUNI Tetsundo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> My position on national referendums for constitutional amendment is as follows. (a) Regarding the scope of eligibility, in the case of Japan, it is premature to lower the participation age to 18, and the minimum age should be set at twenty. (b) A valid referendum should be conditioned on the participation of no less than 50 percent of eligible voters. (c) Regarding voting on individual questions or a unified package of questions, we should opt for voting on individual questions. (d) Regarding restrictions on campaigning in national referendums, full freedom should be ensured as far as possible.
>> The recent lower House election was used as a form of national referendum. The result was that only 49 percent of the public voted affirmatively. The House of Representatives was dissolved in a situation where it normally could not have been dissolved; the Cabinet did not resign and the lower House was not dissolved when it should have been. This is a very strange course of events.
>> To gain the understanding of our neighboring countries, the Constitution should be revised, the Constitution should include provisions concerning the Self-Defense Forces, and the Self-Defense Forces should be placed within the framework of the Constitution.
ITO Kosuke (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> A procedural law for constitutional amendment should be enacted as soon as possible.
>> Regarding the scope of eligibility, as a rule, it is desirable for national referendums and national elections to be conducted using the same registry of voters.
>> Regarding the age of eligibility, many countries have adopted 18 as the minimum age. Countries with a minimum age of twenty are rare. The younger generation should be allowed to participate.
>> Regarding voting on individual questions or a unified package of questions, we should bear in mind that an amendment can be initiated only with the concurring vote of two-thirds or more of all the members of each House. Given this high hurdle that must be cleared, I believe it is better to present the public with a unified package of questions. Our party is in favor of a complete revision of the Constitution. From this perspective also, a unified package would be better. However, future referendums of a general nature or residents' referendums of a local character could be based on individual questions.
HIRAOKA Hideo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> Regarding the revision of Article 9, when a gap develops between ideals and contemporary reality, we should not take the position of bringing our ideals into conformity with reality. It is not necessarily clear how far we can go to protect the country or how far we can go to contribute to world peace under Article 9 as it currently stands. To clarify these points, instead of acting hastily to revise the Constitution, I believe it is the duty of the legislative branch to legislate a basic law on security and to act under a general consensus of the people to examine the defense of the country. The gap between the Constitution and contemporary reality should be discussed in this Special Committee.
>> Given that the Constitution provides for amendments, I do not deny the need to legislate a detailed procedural law accordingly. However, we must make sure the "tail does not wag the dog" when determining the method of referendum and how a proposed constitutional amendment is indicated on a ballot. This means we must thoroughly discuss the content of a proposed amendment and determine a method of referendum that best suits the content of the specific amendment that is being proposed. I am prepared to discuss some of the universal aspects of a procedural law in advance. But for all other aspects pertaining to procedures, I believe discussions should be undertaken only after a proposed amendment has been finalized.
HAYAKAWA Chuko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I hope that our discussions will proceed predicated on the common understanding that national elections and referendums for constitutional amendment are essentially different in terms of their purpose and intent.
>> A constitutional amendment is initiated by the Diet as the highest organ of state power and is presented to a referendum of the people following a concurring vote of two-thirds or more of all the members of each House. The referendum is similar in character to the popular review of Supreme Court justices. As such, it can be said that the people have been given the right to veto the results of the deliberations of the Diet on constitutional amendment. In this sense, "vote of a majority" should mean the majority of the total number of valid votes obtained after discarding the invalid votes. Consideration should be given to establishing a minimum ratio of voter participation as a condition for validation of a referendum.
>> Regarding restrictions on campaigning in national referendums, we should affirm the following principles. Restrictions should be held to a minimum necessary level and should be limited to instances where a rational reason can be established for introducing restrictions. In this context, something like a "supervisory commission on national referendum campaigning" should be formed. Instead of rectification through the application of penalties, it would be more effective to mandate such a commission to issue cease-and-desist orders and warnings.
>> On the issue of voting on individual questions or a unified package of questions, the general rule should be voting on an integrated issue, which makes more sense from the perspective of ensuring overall consistency. However, under certain circumstances, there should be no serious problem in presenting a number of alternative proposals that are put in order of preference. Such matters can be decided upon by the Diet in the course of its deliberations.
HANASHI Yasuhiro (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The national referendum system can be discussed apart from constitutional revision as essentially a technical problem.
>> The view that past failure to legislate does not constitute "legislative nonfeasance" may be viable as a legal argument. However, we are not lawyers. We are legislators representing the people. Therefore, we should enter this discussion asking ourselves what must be done to realize the sovereignty of the people.
>> Determining the minimum voter age in national referendums for constitutional amendments will determine who can participate in the constitutional debate. This will promote a deepening of public discussion.
>> Regarding restrictions on campaigning in national referendums, the fundamental principle should be freedom of campaigning and prohibition of bribery. However, the issue of what constitutes bribery is open to a wide range of interpretations. For instance, paid newspaper advertising may, in certain instances, fall under the scope of bribery. It is necessary to discuss restrictions on campaigning at the start, instead of establishing the rules every time a referendum on amendment is to be undertaken.
>> On the issue of voting on individual questions or a unified package of questions, the decision will depend on whether the proposed amendments are comprehensive or partial in scope. Voting should be based on individual questions if it is possible to separate individual articles in the proposed amendments.
TAKAICHI Sanae (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Eligibility to vote in national referendums on constitutional amendment should mirror eligibility to vote in national elections. As referendums will involve amendment of the supreme law of the land, the right to vote should be given to persons (adults) who are capable of taking full responsibility. As to the argument that 18 should be the age of majority, this matter merits consideration.
>> National referendums should not be held simultaneously with national elections, as there is the risk that referendums voting will be influenced by the image of political parties and other points of contention. In the future, Article 96, Paragraph 1 should be revised to include only "special referendum."
>> Regarding voting on individual questions or a unified package of questions, this should be determined by the Diet for each proposed amendment. Voting on a unified package is unrealistic, but voting on individual questions can also be unrealistic in certain cases. Separate voting should be undertaken for each chapter or for each group of related articles.
>> "Majority" should be defined as the majority of valid votes cast. It is not rational to count abstentions as expressions of opposition. It is important to give due weight to the opinion of those who have seriously read the proposed amendment and have participated in the judgment.
>> Certain restrictions and penalties should apply to campaigning in national referendums. For example, restrictions could be introduced to prevent injury from long exposure to loud-speaker noise and from malicious and organized campaign activities.
>> Regarding the period of publicity after an amendment has been submitted to the people, a realistic solution would be to decide the length of the publicity period according to the number of provisions contained in the proposed amendment.
>> After an amendment has been submitted to the people, it will be necessary to thoroughly publicize the amendment by distributing materials explaining the significance of the constitutional amendment and the content of the amendment to all households.
SHIBAYAMA Masahiko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The right to participate in a national referendum constitutes the ultimate mode of expression of popular sovereignty. It should be discussed separately from the right to vote in national elections, which are subject to a number of restrictions for the purpose of electing fair representation of the people. From this perspective, persons whose civil rights have been suspended should also be allowed to vote in national referendums. Because referendums present a very vital opportunity for the exercise of rights, restrictions on the right to vote for practical reasons cannot be easily justified.
>> Regarding voting on individual questions or a unified package of questions, it is both desirable and realistic to ascertain the will of the people one question at a time. However, questions that are linked logically or pertain to related policies should be presented as a unified package.
>> As a rule, freedom of campaigning in national referendums should be ensured. However, restrictions should apply to organized and large-scale bribery and entertainment of voters. Therefore, I support Director YASUOKA's position that a minimum level of restrictions should apply to news coverage, and bribery and other activities. However, even then, a warning system by a supervisory organization should be put in place first, and due caution should be exercised in the application of penalties.
>> "Majority" should mean a majority of all votes cast. Those who have cast blank votes should be interpreted as having subjectively participated in the expression of popular sovereignty.
FURUKAWA Motohisa (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> A national referendum system for constitutional amendment can be discussed within the framework of discussions for the introduction of a general referendum system designed to complement indirect democracy.
>> In certain respects, the recent lower House election constituted a national referendum on "postal privatization." It seems, however, that a great part of the public voted without completely understanding the content of postal privatization. One of the biggest problems in conducting national referendums for constitutional amendment will be how to ensure that the public fully understands the proposed amendments. To ensure that people will fully understand the proposed amendments and to facilitate sound debate, we must thoroughly discuss the public information arrangements to be adopted.
FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The Final Report of the Research Commission on the Constitution identifies the future direction of our discussions. It should definitely be made use of.
>> A national referendum law can be enacted with a simple majority. However, being mindful of the fact that constitutional amendment requires a "concurring vote of two-thirds or more," enactment should be predicated on thorough coordination among the political parties.
>> National referendums should be held separately from national elections. The former concerns a constitutional proposal already agreed upon by a significant portion of both ruling and opposition parties, while the latter represents a race for office and government. Holding the two simultaneously would be illogical.
>> Regarding voter eligibility, it is common sense to use the same registries of voters and voters residing abroad as maintained under the Public Offices Election Law. However, in a referendum, the public is being asked to decide on the future direction of the nation. Therefore, it is better to have a wider scope of eligible voters. If possible, the minimum age for participation should be 18.
>> Regarding voting on individual questions or a unified package of questions, both have their pros and cons. Voting on a unified package makes it more difficult to decide on how to vote and will act as a constraint on the expression of the popular will. Voting on individual questions may lead to discrepancies between various articles and provisions. Hence, the method of voting will have to be discussed and adjusted according to the content of the proposed amendment.
>> "Majority" should be defined as the majority of valid votes cast. There is no reason to give positive weight to abstentions and invalid ballots in crucial voting that determines the form of the nation.
>> As a rule, campaigning in referendums should be freely allowed. However, a minimum level of rules will be needed to ensure fair and equitable campaigning. The regulations contained in the Public Offices Election Law should be applied, but leniently, to referendums, including prohibition of campaigning by persons connected to the management of referendums, prohibition of the use of civil servant status in campaigning, prohibition of campaigning by foreign nationals, prohibition of popularity polls (prior voting), and prohibition of dissemination of false information and unlawful use of mass media.
>> I am in favor of the proposal made by Director EDANO concerning a joint-drafting committee of the upper and lower Houses to be formed when an amendment is to be initiated.
>> The upper and lower Houses will of course each make its own decisions. However, I hope that the House of Councillors will establish a Special Committee, as the House of Representatives has done, to engage in discussions.
OMURA Hideaki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Regardless of whether or not the failure to enact a national referendum law for constitutional amendment represents "legislative nonfeasance," the truth is that the system is incomplete. The research conducted by the Research Commission on the Constitution revealed that a majority of opinions favored constitutional amendment. Thus, the Diet has been entrusted with the mission of enacting the necessary laws.
>> The registry of voters in referendums can practically be the same as the registry of voters in national elections.
>> Voting on individual questions is better than voting on a unified package of questions because the issues on hand may be very wide-ranging.
>> After an amendment has been initiated, a publicity period of some length will be necessary.
>> Regarding restrictions on campaigning in national referendums, as much freedom of campaigning as possible should be ensured.
>> "Majority" should mean the majority of valid votes cast.
WATANABE Hiromichi (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> I believe the people consider the absence of a national referendum law to be a defect. Hence, I believe it is necessary to take concrete steps toward developing a national referendum system after fully discussing the matter in this Special Committee.
>> Given that constitutional amendment requires a two-third majority in both Houses, it is important for the ruling and opposition parties to reach an agreement.
>> National referendums for constitutional amendment provide the people with extremely important opportunities to express their views in determining the vision of the state. Therefore, national referendums for constitutional amendment differ from national elections.
>> Regarding the scope of voter eligibility, the minimum age of participation should be 18 because it is necessary to hear the views of as many people as possible.
>> Regarding voting on individual questions or a unified package of questions, a decision should be made when the final draft of a proposed constitutional amendment is ready.
>> Regarding restrictions on campaigning in national referendums, as a rule, the freedom of campaigning should be ensured and restrictions should be kept to a minimum necessary level. It will be necessary to discuss what constitutes a minimum necessary level.
KATO Katsunobu (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Discussions of a procedural law should be conducted separately from discussions of constitutional amendment, and a national referendum law for constitutional amendment should be enacted as soon as possible.
>> To impress upon the people their social responsibilities, the age of majority should be lowered to 18. The scope of voter participation in national referendums should correspond to this age.
>> Regarding voting on individual questions or a unified package of questions, the matter should be appropriately decided when an amendment is initiated. There is no need to decide on this matter now.
>> Basically, freedom of campaigning in national referendums should be ensured. As the initiator of amendments, the Diet has the responsibility to inform and educate the public on the contents of the proposed amendment. We will have to deepen our discussions on methods of publicity. While there are some questions that remain here, the government may also act as the initiator of amendments. We will have to discuss methods of publicity that would be appropriate in such cases.
NAKATANI Gen (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> Citizens living abroad should be allowed to participate in voting.
>> Measures should be taken to explain the proposed amendments to Japanese citizens who are unable to read Japanese in order to facilitate their participation in voting. For instance, explanatory materials could be prepared in English and Chinese.
>> Due consideration should be given to the questions of who will explain the proposed amendments to people with sight, hearing, or other disabilities, and what methods of voting will be adopted for them.
>> As the initiator of amendments, it will be very important for the Diet to appropriately convey the content of proposed amendments to the public by providing information on such matters as basic thinking on the Constitution, explanation of the points of contention, and consensus views. This will require an increase in staff and improvements in the Diet's functions.
>> It will be necessary to deepen our discussions on restrictions that may apply to television, newspapers and the Internet.
>> Though the Diet is the initiator of amendments, some thought should be given to other possibilities, such as bringing draft constitutions prepared by citizens and other citizen views to the Diet.
SENGOKU Yoshito (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> As a constitutionalist, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the dead have neither power nor rights over the living and each generation must choose its own constitution. With this he attempted to make the necessary adjustments with democratic principles. We definitely need a legal system to allow the people of our country to express their will.
>> We should consider how single-issue policy matters could also be submitted to national referendums.
>> The right to participate in national referendums should be extended to the younger people as much as possible.
OGAWA Junya (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)
>> The present Constitution is the last fortress of sound conservatism and should not be actively revised. In the face of unavoidable social circumstances, minimum necessary amendments should be made, as this will play an important role in stabilizing the values in the life of the people.
>> A ladder should not be put in place unless it is clearly shown where it leads. Doing so would only stir up concern and insecurity in the people. Before discussing the specifics of procedural regulations, the House of Representatives should first determine the actual content of a proposed constitutional amendment. At the very least, discussions of procedural regulations should be undertaken in tandem with discussions of a specific constitutional amendment.
>> No decision can be made on point-by-point ratification versus blanket ratification without first discussing the actual content of the constitutional amendments to be proposed.
MIHARA Asahiko (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> The decision of whether to say "yea" or "nay" to constitutional amendment belongs to the people. As for the Diet, it must act speedily to legislate a national referendum law to make constitutional amendment "possible" and to thereby empower the people to choose between "yea" and "nay."
>> When a national referendum is to be undertaken, it will be extremely important to inform and educate the public in such a manner as can be easily understood. We will need to deepen our discussions on specific matters pertaining to PR activities.
MAKIHARA Hideki (Liberal Democratic Party)
>> In a national referendum, it will be necessary to involve all of the public in active discussions. While there are some practical problems, we should examine how the age of participation in national referendums can be extended to include young people below the age of twenty.
>> A national referendum system differs both in intent and significance from the Public Offices Election Law. Therefore, unnecessary restrictions should be avoided so as to facilitate active discussions at the public level.
TSUJIMOTO Kiyomi (Social Democratic Party)
>> Our discussions today have shown that a very important point of contention will be whether procedural matters can be separated from the specific contents of constitutional amendments. Therefore, this point should be thoroughly discussed in our future meetings. Some have expressed the view that a decision on voting on individual questions versus a unified package can be postponed until later. But this represents a central issue that must be resolved before the enactment of a procedural law. This matter must also be thoroughly discussed.
>> Members of the Liberal Democratic Party expressed the view that "discussion of the Constitution is the will of the people." To ensure free and active discussion, members of the various parties and groups represented here should at all times actively participate in the discussions of this Special Committee whenever it is in session.