Third Meeting

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Meeting Agenda

Bill for Law Concerning Procedures for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan (submitted by Mr. YASUOKA Okiharu and four others: 164th Session of the Diet, 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 (submitted by Mr. EDANO Yukio and three others: 164th Session of the Diet, House of Representatives Bill No. 31)

Statements were heard from Mr. YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party) and from Mr. SONODA Yasuhiro (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents), the presenters of the abovementioned bills, explaining the reasons for submission of their bills. This was followed by questions being put to the following presenters of the two bills: FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party), SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito), EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents), YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party), SUZUKI Katsumasa (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents), KATO Katsunobu (Liberal Democratic Party), HANASHI Yasuhiro (Liberal Democratic Party), SONODA Yasuhiro (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents) and OGAWA Junya (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents).

Members who put questions to the presenters of the bills:


Regarding the establishment of a subcommittee

[1] Following consultation, the decision was made to establish the Subcommittee for Considering Bills on Procedures for Amending the Constitution of Japan.

[2] Following consultation, the decision was made to request the attendance of informants and government officials as informants in the Subcommittee.


Explanation of reasons for submission of "Bill for Law Concerning Procedures for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan" (submitted by Mr. YASUOKA Okiharu and four others: 164th Session of the Diet, House of Representatives Bill No. 30): by Mr. YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party), a presenter of the bill

On behalf of the presenters of the "Bill for Law Concerning Procedures for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan" submitted jointly by the Liberal Democratic Party and New Komeito, I would like to explain the reasons for submission of the bill and to outline its content.

Article 96 of the Constitution of Japan stipulates the procedures for constitutional amendment. Although nearly 60 years have elapsed since the coming into force of the Constitution of Japan, the national referendum legislation called for in these procedures has yet to be enacted. It may be no exaggeration to say that one of our most basic responsibilities as representatives of the people and Members of the Diet is to enact those fundamental laws ancillary to the Constitution. Enacting a national referendum law for constitutional amendment involves creating a system that will enable the people, in whose hands rests the powers of establishing the Constitution, to exercise this power. By enacting such legislation, the people's sovereign right of constitutional amendment will be restored and concrete systems will be created for the achievement of true popular sovereignty.

Since last fall, this Special Committee and its directors' meeting have been actively engaged in discussions of legislation for a national referendum system for constitutional amendment. As a result, the Liberal Democratic Party, New Komeito and the Democratic Party of Japan have arrived at a common understanding on nearly all matters pertaining to such legislation. At the same time, the three parties have confirmed that their views remain different on several important matters.

In light of these circumstances, it was felt that it would be desirable to abide by the following procedures in enacting the procedural law for the amendment of the Constitution, which sets forth the fundamental rules of the nation. The political parties would separately submit draft bills reflecting what they believed to be the best system at the present juncture. These bills would then be debated openly and in full view of the public in the committees and plenary session of the Diet. The opinions and criticisms received in the course of this debate would be utilized in improving upon the proposed bills and creating a broader consensus. This constitutes the background to the submission of the present bill.

The salient features of this bill are as follows.

First, the present bill is specifically designed to function as a law for the implementation of the provisions of Article 96 of the Constitution of Japan and is exclusively applicable to the "national referendums for constitutional amendment."

Second, "voting date" will be set by resolution of the Diet, but must fall within a period of between 60 and 180 days inclusive, counting from the date on which the constitutional amendment has been initiated by the Diet.

Third, "eligible voter" is defined to be a citizen of Japan aged 20 years or older.

Fourth, when a constitutional amendment has been initiated, a Public Relations Council for Constitutional Amendment will be established in the Diet for the purpose of undertaking public relations activities concerning the contents of the proposed constitutional amendment. The Council will consist of twenty members with ten members chosen from each House of the Diet.

Fifth, regarding "method of balloting," approval will be indicated by drawing a circle on the ballot, and disapproval will be indicated by drawing an X. Blank ballots will be treated as void. An amendment will be deemed to have been approved by the people if the number of votes for approval exceeds one-half the total number of valid ballots cast.

Sixth, regarding "national referendum campaign," national referendum campaign activities will, in principle, be free and unrestricted. However, minimum necessary restrictions will be adopted to ensure fairness in voting.

Pursuant to the above, the bill contains the following restrictions and provisions concerning campaign activities. [1] Persons involved in administering the national referendum and specified public service personnel will be prohibited from participating in national referendum campaign activities while in office. [2] Civil servants and educators will be prohibited from using their official positions in participating in national referendum campaign activities. [3] During the one-week period leading up to the voting date, restrictions will be placed on television and radio broadcasting of political advertisements. [4] Certain portions of the national referendum campaign may be supported by public funds, including the provision of free advertising time and space in television, radio and newspapers to political parties.

Seventh, the following provisions will apply to "penalties." [1] Only minimum necessary penalties will be adopted to ensure fairness in voting. [2] Bribery charges will solely apply to egregious acts that go beyond the scope of conventional social behavior. For this purpose, the crime of bribery will be defined and its scope limited to the following. "Bribery refers to the organized solicitation of a significant number of voters to vote in favor, to vote in opposition, or to abstain from voting, and to compensate compliance with the provision of money or goods in amounts sufficient to influence voting behavior."

Eighth, to set up the procedures for the initiation of constitutional amendments, the Diet Law will be revised in the following areas. The number of presenters needed to submit a proposed constitutional amendment will be stipulated. Provisions will be made for empanelling a Constitution Examination Board for examining a proposed constitutional amendment that has been submitted. Special measures will be adopted pertaining to the examination procedures of the Constitution Examination Board, which will be charged with the critical task of examining a proposed constitutional amendment.

Finally, the provisions of this legislation will come into force as follows. Provisions pertaining to the implementation of national referendums will come into force upon the lapse of two years from the date on which the law is promulgated. Revisions of the Diet Law will come into force on the day on which the Diet is called into session for the first time after the law is promulgated.

This completes my explanation of the reasons for the submission and the outline of the bill.

I respectfully request the members of this Special Committee to carefully discuss this bill and to speedily approve it.

Explanation of reasons for submission of "Bill for Law Concerning Initiation Procedures and National Referendums for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan and Other Important Matters of State" (submitted by Mr. EDANO Yukio and three others: 164th Session of the Diet, House of Representatives Bill No. 31) by Mr. SONODA Yasuhiro (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents), a presenter of the bill

On behalf of the presenters of this bill who are members of the Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents, I would like to explain the "Bill for Law Concerning Initiation Procedures and National Referendums for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan and Other Important Matters of State."

This bill is designed to jointly establish the procedures for national referendums for constitutional amendment as prescribed in Article 96 of the Constitution of Japan, and advisory national referendums concerning important matters of state. The bill also establishes procedures for the initiation of these two types of national referendums.

Specific procedures for voting to accept or reject constitutional amendments should have been enacted in the form of a law ancillary to the Constitution in 1946 simultaneously with the enactment of the Constitution.

These procedures need to be established in an impartial and fair manner by separating them from discussions concerning any specific constitutional amendment. This is because regardless of whether constitutional amendment entails an easy or difficult process, a biased system will fail to accurately reflect the will of the people and may ultimately lead to the self-destruction of constitutionalism.

For these reasons, we believe necessary legislation should be enacted before any further progress is made in specific discussions concerning the Constitution itself. The system to be established must be one that is acceptable to both those promoting and those opposing constitutional amendment. The present bill was submitted with these matters in mind.

The national referendum system for constitutional amendment provides for a direct opportunity to register the popular will. As such, it stands as an exception to the principle of indirect democracy that is basic to the affairs of state in Japan. Moreover, from the perspective of constitutionalism, amendment of the provisions of the Constitution is not necessarily the only case in which it is desirable to directly register the popular will.

Needless to say, it would be unacceptable to establish legal procedures that would curtail the legislative powers of the Diet without referring to the will of the Diet. On the other hand, there would be nothing wrong if the Diet, acting on its own accord and volition, decided to refer a matter (in particular, matters related to constitutionalism), to the people for advisory purposes. Exercising the powers of the Diet while paying due attention to the will of the sovereign people in this manner would not in any way violate the Constitution. Rather, such a course of action would be in accord with the intent and spirit of the Constitution.

For this reason, we are proposing a single piece of legislation that will establish an advisory national referendum system as a general law, and a national referendum system for constitutional amendment as a special measures law under the general law.

Next, I will review the main points of the bill.

The first point concerns the scope of eligible voters in national referendums.

Our party has long advocated lowering the age of majority to 18. We believe this matter should be acted on as soon as possible. But in the very least, action should be taken to adopt 18 as the minimum age for the participation in voting in national referendums for constitutional amendment. Insofar as the Constitution defines the long-term framework for the exercise of state power, it only makes sense to maximize the opportunity for participation in decisions on the Constitution for those persons who will be involved in the future of the country for longer periods of time.

The second point concerns the method of marking the ballot and the definition of majority.

Article 96 requires the people's "ratification" of amendments initiated by the Diet, and does not say anything about asking for the views of the people. In light of this provision, what should be done with the ballot of a voter who has taken the trouble of going to a voting place but then has not indicated his or her approval of the proposal? We believe it is appropriate to judge that such a voter did not have the intent to ratify the proposal.

For this reason, this bill stipulates that persons approving the initiative of the Diet and seeking to ratify it should indicate their approval by drawing a circle on their ballots. The Constitution will be amended when the number of ballots bearing a circle exceeds one-half of all ballots cast.

The third point concerns national referendum campaign activities.

A national referendum resembles a public election in that both involve voting. However, in the case of public elections, the principal actors in campaigning are effectively limited to political parties and the candidates. By contrast, in the case of national referendums, any member of the public with an opinion either for or against an initiative can potentially be a principal actor in campaign activities. Furthermore, in the case of national referendums, it is impossible to distinguish between campaigning "for or against" an amendment and the expression of political views. Therefore, any attempt to place restrictions on campaigning can act to have a serious suppressive impact on the expression of political opinions.

Therefore, this bill has been crafted to minimize this suppressive impact. First of all, as a rule, the bill does not prohibit the participation of specified public service personnel in campaign activities. Nor does it prohibit civil servants and educators from participating in campaign activities in their official capacities. As an exception to this rule, the bill does prohibit the participation in campaigning of civil servants involved in the administration of a national referendum.

The buying of votes certainly should not be allowed in national referendums. However, because it is very difficult to create requirements to constitute provisions that would apply only to the truly egregious cases of bribery, the present bill does not contain any provisions concerning bribery, to ensure that it does not have a suppressive effect.

This completes my exposition of the present bill.

It is my hope that both this bill and the bill presented by the ruling parties will be discussed with due humility and earnestness so that an impartial and fair system acceptable to those favoring amendment as well as those opposed to amendment can be created.

Members who put questions to presenters and the main points of their questions

KONDO Motohiko (Liberal Democratic Party)

(Comment)

>> We are here as Members of the Diet discussing bills that have been sponsored by our colleagues. As such, I would hope that the respective presenters of the bills submitted by the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan will be able to avoid becoming unnecessarily attached to their own bills. Instead, I would like to see constructive debate in which the presenters are prepared to candidly express their ideas on points that they feel would merit review and revision at this time.

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the ruling parties)

>> In our previous meeting, Mr. FUNADA stated that, "It would be possible to enact the bill submitted by the ruling party based on a simple majority, but the aim is to arrive at a more broadly based consensus." I would like to ask Mr. FUNADA and Mr. SAITO to comment on this statement as presenters of the bill submitted by the ruling party.

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan)

>> I would like to ask Mr. EDANO, as the primary presenter of the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan, to explain how he will respond to the ruling parties call for "arriving at a more broadly based consensus."

(To the presenter of the bills submitted by the ruling parties and Democratic Party of Japan)

>> The following two issues will have a major impact on the foundation of Japan's legal system and social system: (a) scope of questions to be submitted to national referendums, and (b) the minimum voting age in national referendums. It will be necessary to examine the expected impact and to devise appropriate measures. I would like to ask the presenters of the two bills to comment on their understanding of this matter in light of the results obtained from the overseas research mission.

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the ruling parties)

>> Regarding the scope of eligible voters, the bills submitted by the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan both extend the right to vote to persons whose voting rights have been suspended or cancelled under the Public Offices Election Law. What is your intent here?


FURUKAWA Motohisa (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

(To the presenters of the bills submitted by the ruling parties and Democratic Party of Japan)

>> I would like to ask the presenters of the various parties to comment on the need for constitutional amendment at this point in time.

>> In view of the positions taken by the presenters of the two bills on constitutional amendment, why is it necessary now to enact a national referendum law?

>> I believe that constitutional amendment and the national referendum law should be discussed separately. There are voices in the public expressing concern that a national referendum law is to be enacted for the purpose of amending the Constitution. How do the presenters of the two bills intend to remove this suspicion?

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan)

>> Both bills state that any single constitutional amendment to be initiated will cover "matters that are related in content," and it is left to the Diet to judge what constitutes related matters. This gives rise to the following fear. For example, with a two-thirds majority in the Diet, would it not be possible to combine the amendment of Article 9 with the establishment of environmental rights under a single initiative? What are your views on this matter?


AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

(To the presenters of the bills submitted by the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan)

>> The five years of research conducted by the Research Commission on the Constitution was undertaken not for the purpose of constitutional amendment, but rather for the purpose of researching the Constitution from every conceivable angle. Is it correct to assume that the Constitution Examination Board will differ from this in that it will be empowered to submit bills and to reach decisions through majority vote, as is any standing committee of the Diet?

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the ruling parties)

>> Before examining any specific proposal for constitutional amendment, I believe the following questions must be discussed. "Why is there a need to amend the Constitution?" "Why is there no need to amend the Constitution?" Furthermore, I believe that these questions cannot be calmly discussed in a forum that is empowered to submit bills and to reach decisions through majority vote. What are your views on this matter?

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan)

>> What is needed to ensure calm discussion? The presenters of the bill submitted by the ruling parties stated that one option would be for the Constitution Examination Board to undertake research that is not predicated on the submission of a constitutional amendment for a certain period of time after its initial establishment. If that is so, I believe that an organization should be created "whose purpose is constitutional amendment, but which is not empowered to submit bills or to reach decisions through majority vote." What are your views on this matter?


KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the ruling parties)

>> A procedural law for constitutional amendment was not enacted during the 60 years since the promulgation of the Constitution because the people did not believe that specific amendments to the Constitution were necessary. Public opinion polls show that the people do not consider constitutional amendment to be an important issue. What need is there now for enactment of a procedural law for constitutional amendment?

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan)

>> The procedural law for constitutional amendment that is being discussed is not a matter of mere formality. Rather, I believe it is undeniable fact that it is closely and inseparably intertwined with the movement toward constitutional amendment. I would like to ask Mr. EDANO to comment on this matter.

(To the presenters of the bills submitted by the ruling parties and Democratic Party of Japan)

>> The right of constitutional enactment rests with the people. Therefore, in matters related to the Constitution, the most important thing is to consider the will of the people, and the will of the people must be reflected in the fullest manner possible. I would like to ask the presenters of both bills to comment on this matter.

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the ruling parties)

>> In the bill submitted by the ruling parties, the "definition of majority" is given to be the majority of all valid ballots cast, and no provisions are made for a minimum voter turnout rate. What is the rationale for this?

>> Under the bill submitted by the ruling parties, suppose only 50 percent of all voters turn out to vote in a national referendum. In this situation, an amendment could be ratified with the support of about 25 percent of all voters. You have just stated that the "will of the people will be reflected" in the amendment process. How does that allow you to come to this conclusion?

>> In the bill submitted by the ruling parties, membership in the "Public Relations Council" is to be allocated to political parties in proportion to the number of seats held in the Diet. The same applies to the allocation of free television and radio advertising time and free newspaper advertising space. I believe this system overwhelmingly favors those parties approving constitutional amendment. What are your views on this matter?

>> In the bill submitted by the ruling parties, civil servants and educators are prohibited from participating in national referendum campaigns in their official capacities. Suppose a university professor, based on his or her own research, advocates that the Constitution should be preserved and protected. Would this contravene the prohibition?


TSUJIMOTO Kiyomi (Social Democratic Party)

(To the presenters of the bills submitted by the ruling parties and Democratic Party of Japan)

>> I believe the Constitution establishes a normative framework by which the people can apply limits to the exercise of state power. In the opinion of the presenters of the various parties, what kind of normative framework does the Constitution provide?

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the ruling parties)

>> The proposed bill concerning procedural law for constitutional amendment cannot be discussed separately from specific proposals for constitutional amendment. Mr. FUNADA is both a presenter of the bill concerning procedural law for constitutional amendment and chairman of a subcommittee of the Liberal Democratic Party's Constitutional Drafting Committee. Given your dual roles, should you not admit that the two cannot be discussed separately?

>> If you intend to argue that the proposed bill is merely a procedural bill, should you not delete those provisions of the bill that pertain to a "Constitution Examination Board" empowered to examine and to draft proposed constitutional amendments?

>> The process of initiating a constitutional amendment in the Diet must be treated separately from the process of publicity and information that follows the initiation of an amendment. Therefore, membership in the "Public Relations Council" should not be allocated in proportion to the number of seats held in the Diet. Instead, membership should be evenly divided between those favoring and those opposed to the proposed amendment.

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan)

>> Allocation of free television and radio advertising time and free newspaper advertising space to political parties in proportion to the number of seats held in the Diet will generate a sense of unfairness and distrust in the constitutional amendment process among the people. It seems to me that this would work to the disadvantage of those favoring constitutional amendment. What are your views on this matter?

(Comment)

>> According to public opinion polls, 66 percent of the people do not have a good knowledge of the bill for a national referendum for constitutional amendment. We cannot allow rules to be established in the absence of the people in whom sovereignty resides.

(Comment by Chairman NAKAYAMA)

>> I would like to respond to Ms. TSUJIMOTO by saying that the cause of this problem lies in the manner in which the Constitution, the basic law of the land, is taught in our schools. I look forward to the cooperation of Ms. TSUJIMOTO in promoting education concerning the Constitution.


ITOKAWA Masaaki (People's New Party and Group of Independents)

(To the presenters of the bills submitted by the ruling parties and Democratic Party of Japan)

>> I would like you to comment on the significance of the process leading to the submission of your respective bills for a national referendum law, in conjunction with the necessity of constitutional amendment.

>> I have heard that during the previous session of the Diet, the directors' meeting was energetically engaged in clarifying the points of contention pertaining to constitutional amendment procedures. I would like to know how this proceeded and how the results of these discussions were fed back into the two bills.

>> I believe that discussions of the national referendum system will contribute to deepening the public's awareness of the Constitution. We often hear the view that the people do not desire the Constitution to be amended, and that there is no need for a national referendum system. I am of the belief that we should rather create a national referendum system and submit these issues to the people for their judgment. What are your views on this matter?

>> In the process of deliberation and enactment, I believe it is necessary to thoroughly inform the public concerning the contents of the bill. What future measures do you have in mind for publicizing the bill?

>> In a sense, the dissolution of the Diet followed by the general election of last year can be viewed as a form of national referendum. I would like you to comment on whether you would approve or disapprove of such application as well as the reasons for your adoption of a general national referendum system.

>> The minimum voting age is 20 in the bill submitted by the ruling parties and 18 in the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan. I would like to ask both sides to explain the reasons for adopting these provisions.

(To the presenters of the bill submitted by the ruling parties)

>> The voice of the people must be reflected in the Constitution. For this, I believe national referendum campaigning should, as a rule, be free and unrestricted. Any restrictions should be kept at minimum necessary levels. What are your fundamental thoughts on restrictions on campaigning?