Fifth Meeting

Thursday, November 9, 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)

Mr. KONDO Motohiko (Liberal Democratic Party), Chairman of the Subcommittee for Considering Bills on Procedures for Amending the Constitution of Japan, reported on the proceedings and outline of the discussion of the Subcommittee concerning the two abovementioned bills.(Click here)  This was followed by supplementary comments made by members of the Special Committee who are members of the Subcommittee. After this, questions were put to the following presenters of the two bills: Mr. FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party), Mr. HANASHI Yasuhiro (Liberal Democratic Party), Mr. SUZUKI Katsumasa (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents), Mr. OGAWA Junya (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents), Mr. KATO Katsunobu (Liberal Democratic Party), Mr. YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party), Mr. AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito), and Mr. EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents).

Subcommittee members who made supplementary comments:

Members who put questions to the presenters of the bills:


Report of the Chairman of the Subcommittee

KONDO Motohiko (Liberal Democratic Party)

I would like to report on the proceedings of the Subcommittee for Considering Bills on Procedures for Amending the Constitution of Japan and to present an outline of our discussions.

The Subcommittee met on November 7 and heard from the following informants: Mr. WATANABE Kojiro, Member, News Reporting Committee, Chairman, News Reporting Sub-Committee, National Association of Commercial Broadcasters in Japan; Mr. YAMADA Yoshiaki, Member, Broadcast Standard Review Board, Chairman, Broadcasting Ethics Sub-Committee, National Association of Commercial Broadcasters in Japan; Mr. IMAI Hajime, Journalist and Secretary General of the Group of Citizens for Making Proper National Referendum Rules; Mr. YOSHIOKA Keisuke, Vice President, Japan Federation of Bar Associations; and Mr. YAMADA Kenta, Associate Professor, School of Literature, Senshu University. Statements were heard from the informants concerning the Bill for Law Concerning Procedures for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan, and the Bill for Law Concerning Initiation Procedures and National Referendums for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan and Other Important Matters of State, with special reference to media-related restrictions and public information activities as contained in the two abovementioned bills. This was followed by discussions with the participation of Mr. SUGANUMA Ichio, Chief Secretary, Committee on Constitutional Law, Japan Federation of Bar Associations as an additional informant.

I would like to present the main points of the statements made by the informants so that the contents of these statements may be fully shared with the Special Committee for Research on the Constitution of Japan.

Mr. WATANABE Kojiro expressed the following views. It is very laudable that the media-related restrictions that were being considered at the outset were not included in the bills. The mission of broadcasters in national referendums is to provide accurate reporting and a forum for the stimulation of discussion. To ensure political fairness and to provide a broad range of views, the National Association of Commercial Broadcasters in Japan is committed to unbiased broadcasting. Mr. WATANABE made the following statement regarding the provision of free airtime to political parties for opinion advertising. Any initiative that reaches the public has already been approved by a two-thirds majority in the Diet. Therefore, an overwhelming majority of views from the political parties will be in favor of the amendment. This raises the concern that these broadcasts will lack proper balance. In the process of constitutional amendment, the role of the Diet is to initiate an amendment, which then is left to the debate and independent judgment of the people. The question arises as to why political parties should receive special privileges.

Mr. YAMADA Yoshiaki expressed his opposition to the ban on opinion broadcasts during the seven-day period immediately preceding the voting day from the perspective of safeguarding the autonomy of broadcasters, stating that this should be the period of most active public debate. Regarding the broadcasting of commercial messages on a national referendum, Mr. YAMADA noted that such messages differed from standard commercial advertising and would take a form that would be unlike any previous type of advertising. While various issues remained to be resolved, Mr. YAMADA stated that he would like these to be resolved by broadcasters themselves.

Mr. IMAI Hajime expressed the following views. Television and radio advertising appeals more strongly to emotions than to reason. High advertising costs may generate inequalities based on differences in financial resources. In light of these features of broadcast advertising, it is desirable that any necessary restrictions be voluntarily adopted by broadcasters based on their own best judgment and conscience, but legal restrictions would be unavoidable if broadcasters failed to adopt such voluntary restriction. Regarding the period of ban on broadcast advertising, such broadcasts should not be permitted after the start of absentee balloting. On the other hand, it is unnecessary to subject print media advertising, including advertising in newspapers and magazines, to any form of restriction. News anchors in television and radio news programs should be free to express their opinions. However, due consideration must be given to opposing views. It is desirable for restrictions related to this matter to be voluntarily adopted based on the conscience and judgment of broadcasters.

Mr. YOSHIOKA Keisuke expressed the following views. It is laudable that the media-related restrictions that were being considered at the outset have been deleted. Positions for and against a constitutional amendment must be treated equally in opinion advertising in the media and public information activities. Mr. YOSHIOKA added that he was opposed to the ban on broadcast advertising beginning seven days before the voting day. On the other hand, he advocated the following. Free advertising should also be provided to groups and citizens other than political parties and opinions for and against should be equally allocated in the free advertising frame. Regarding the membership of the Public Relations Council, appointments should be such as to equally reflect positions for and against an amendment, including consideration of appointments of members from outside the Diet. National Referendum Official Gazette should be formulated from an impartial position, from the viewpoint of the public and the information should be accurate, easy to understand and thorough.

Prof. YAMADA Kenta expressed the following views. While advertising is a commercial activity, freedom of expression in advertising is guaranteed under the Constitution. As a rule, any restrictions on advertising should be kept to minimum necessary levels that are rational in intent. Prof. YAMADA proceeded to comment on the following problems. The rationale of the ban on broadcast advertising during the seven-day period prior to the voting day is questionable. The rationale for providing free advertising to political parties only is questionable. Because the Diet is a political organ, the delegation of the content of public information to the Diet gives rise to various risks and dangers. The assignment of access to advertising based on the number of seats held in the Diet gives rise to various risks and dangers. In light of these problems, Prof. YAMADA advocated that a more specific review be undertaken in the following areas: the deletion of all forms of media-related restrictions, including restrictions on advertising, and the provision of advertising subsidies to designated organizations.

Arising from the views expressed by the informants, discussions and an active exchange of views ensued among Subcommittee members and informants.

I would like to comment in greater detail concerning the main subject of this session, which was media-related restrictions and public information activities. First of all, on a general note, most of the informants expressed strong support and appreciation for the fact that the media-related restrictions that were being considered earlier had been excluded from the bills.

The following views were expressed. Article 3-II of the Broadcast Law provides for impartiality in broadcasting. Because this provision obligates broadcasters to maintain fairness in broadcasting, it is unthinkable that broadcasters would resort to unbalanced broadcasts in a national referendum. The content of individual programs should basically be left to the independent judgment of individual broadcasters.

On the other hand, it was argued that the maintenance of impartiality in broadcasting required some form of guarantee. Given that broadcasters cannot ignore the wishes of advertisers, it was questioned whether the content of individual programs could be left to self-regulation.

Regarding the pros and cons of allowing for unlimited access to opinion advertising in the media, it was stated that differences in financial resources would create unfair advantages and disadvantages, and that consideration should be given to such measures as the application of a minimum broadcasting price rate and extending the duration of the national referendum campaign.

Presenters of the bills responded as follows. If we were to adopt legal restrictions to ensure fairness and impartiality, it would be virtually impossible to adopt restrictions on advertising content. Therefore, the only prohibition contained in the bill is a ban on broadcast advertising during the seven-day period preceding the voting day. Regarding airtime, broadcasting rates and other matters related to fair treatment in advertising, these issues will need to be taken care of properly.

Regarding the ban on broadcast advertising during the seven-day period preceding the voting day, the following view was expressed. Both the ruling parties' bill and the Democratic Party of Japan's bill contain a ban on television and radio advertising, with the exception of free broadcast advertising by political parties, during the seven-day period preceding the voting day. This ban reflects the awareness of the particularly sensational impact of broadcast media and the need to reserve a period of time for weeding out sensational arguments in the "free market of public debate." Free broadcast advertising by political parties should also be banned for a certain period preceding the voting day. Such a ban should go into effect with the start of absentee voting. The following view was expressed in response to these comments. Broadcast advertising should be allowed during the period immediately preceding the voting day especially because this is when national referendum campaigns can be assumed to be at their climax. Broadcast advertising will work to the disadvantage of groups and interests that do not have the financing to create the desired effect in advertising.

Regarding the pros and cons of providing free advertising to political parties only, the following view was expressed. Both the ruling parties' bill and the DPJ's bill assign free television, radio and newspaper advertising to political parties represented in the Diet. This arrangement is lacking in fairness and impartiality because groups other than those political parties are not given access to free advertising. The following view was expressed in response to these comments. As principal agents involved in initiating constitutional amendments, political parties are the best informed of the developments and discussions leading to the proposed amendment, and should therefore be actively engaged in national referendum campaigns. It is for exactly this reason that political parties should be given access to free advertising.

Regarding the criterion for the allocation of access to free advertising, in both the ruling parties' bill and the DPJ's bill, the length and frequency of free advertising is to be determined by the Public Relations Council in light of the number of seats held by political parities in the Diet. The following view was expressed on this matter. The number of votes in the Diet for and against an amendment is of interest only in the process of initiating an amendment in the Diet. After an amendment has been actually initiated, it is important to provide the public with full exposure to arguments both for and against the amendment. For this reason, arguments for and against an amendment must be given equal treatment in the allocation of access to free advertising.

Regarding this matter, a presenter of the DPJ's bill stated that modifications to the bill are being considered to allow for equal treatment of arguments for and against a proposed amendment. A presenter of the ruling parties' bill responded that discussion should be undertaken for creating an arrangement that comes closer to equal treatment of arguments for and against a proposed amendment.

Regarding membership in the Public Relations Council, the following view was expressed. In both the ruling parties' bill and the DPJ's bill, membership is assigned to political parties according to the number of seats held in the Diet. But special consideration is given to minority parties, and there is no problem with the basic thinking in both bills. The following view was expressed in opposition. If the role of the Public Relations Council is to deliberate upon the content and implementation of public information, its membership should include equal numbers from parties in favor of and opposed to the proposed amendment.

Regarding the "commentary" on the proposed constitutional amendment, which constitutes one of the elements to be included in the National Referendum Official Gazettes, the view was expressed that such commentaries would necessarily be written from the perspective of support for the proposed amendment. A presenter of the bill responded to this comment as follows. "Commentary and other explanations" of a proposed constitutional amendment is intended to consist of objective and impartial explanations of the deliberations leading to the proposed amendment and comparative tables showing the current wording of the Constitution and the proposed amendment. An informant explained how public information was handled in a local referendum held in Maibara City, Shiga Prefecture, concerning municipal amalgamation. Arguments for and against the initiative were given equal space on the front page of the public information gazette. On the back, individual assembly members were given equal space to comment on the initiative.

As chairman of the Subcommittee, [Mr. KONDO concluded], my impressions of this meeting are as follows. During the previous Diet session, the Special Committee heard from informants from the broadcasting, magazine and newspaper industries. The Subcommittee has followed this up, adding to the depth of our discussions. Freedom of expression is the foundation of a democratic society. A diverse and unrestricted press buttressed by this fundamental freedom serves the people's right to know and provides a basis for judgment when voting. All the members of the Subcommittee are in agreement that, therefore, preservation of the freedom of the press is important above all else. Regarding the allocation of access to free advertising, I feel that it is highly notable that the presenters of both bills have taken a major step toward reaching a consensus by stating that they are prepared to discuss equal treatment of views and positions in favor of and opposed to a proposed amendment. We are all aware of the importance of ensuring that the people are able to judge appropriately when voting. I stand convinced that, based on this common understanding, we will be able to reach a consensus through a process of consultation to which all members of the Special Committee contribute their wisdom.

I believe that the main subject of this session, "media-related restrictions and public information activities," covers some very important issues related to providing the public with a firm foundation on which decisions can be based in voting in national referendums. In light of the discussions conducted by the Subcommittee, I would like to ask this Special Committee to further deepen its discussions of media-related restrictions and public information activities from various angles.

This concludes my report.

Main points of statements by Subcommittee members making supplementary comments

AICHI Kazuo (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> The informants from the media were highly appreciative of the fact that media-related restrictions had been basically deleted from the bills. I felt that this is evidence of the great progress made in the discussions of the Special Committee.

>> The idea that free advertising should be provided not only to political parties but also to citizen groups and other organizations must be considered with caution.

>> Concerning the allocation of access to free advertising to political parties in proportion to their number of seats in the Diet, it has been proposed that free advertising should be equally allocated between those in favor and those opposed to an amendment. I was impressed by the positive response given to this proposal by the presenters of the ruling parties' bill and the DPJ's bill.

>> Regarding the ban on broadcast advertising during the seven-day period preceding the voting date, taking into consideration the impact of the broadcast media and the inequalities that may arise from differences in financial resources, I believe it is necessary to provide the public with a certain period for calm decision-making.

>> It has been argued that membership in the Public Relations Council should be equally divided between those in favor and those opposed to an amendment. Given that the Public Relations Council will be an organ of the Diet, allocation based on the number of seats in the Diet should be the rule. As the proposed bill provides special consideration to minority parties, there should be no problem with this arrangement.

>> An informant has stated that the Diet should not be responsible for public information activities. However, regarding a proposed constitutional amendment, it is the role of the Diet to provide the public with full information and a forum for debate.

>> In ensuring that the people will judge correctly, the most effective method of public information would be to allow the people to observe the discussions concerning constitutional amendment. NHK and private broadcasters should actively televise sessions of the Diet.

>> National referendums will heighten the awareness of the people. The argument that national referendums should not be held because of low public awareness of national referendums and the Constitution suffers from an inversion of logic. To heighten awareness, it is necessary to enact a national referendum law as soon as possible and to implement a national referendum.


SONODA Yasuhiro (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

>> Based on the statements made by the various informants, I have come to realize that not only the ruling parties' bill but also the Democratic Party of Japan's bill requires some modification.

>> In the DPJ's bill, the allocation of access to free advertising to political parties is proportionate to their number of seats in the Diet. However, to maintain political fairness and to deepen the public's understanding through exposure to a wide range of views, I am beginning to think that an arrangement providing equal treatment to both sides is more appropriate.

>> It is my understanding that the Public Relations Council is an organ designed to provide the people with objective and impartial information. Measures should be taken to avoid suspicions that the "commentary" formulated by the Public Relations Council is biased in favor of the majority position supporting constitutional amendment. For this purpose, I am considering making some revisions to the matters to be included in the National Referendum Official Gazettes. It has been suggested that the Public Relations Council include persons who are not Members of the Diet. An alternative would be to make allowances in the management rules of the Council for hearing from informants who are not Members of the Diet.

>> As a rule, it is desirable for restrictions on the media to be voluntary ones. However, I also believe that some restrictions are necessary because commercial advertising can have an enormous impact and unfairness can result from differences in financial resources. While the ban on broadcast advertising during the seven-day period preceding the voting day is designed to provide voters with an opportunity to make calm judgments, I would like to consider this matter further.

>> Free advertising is provided exclusively to political parties because Members of the Diet and the political parties, who are fully informed of the discussions culminating in the proposed constitutional amendment, are in the best position to engage in national referendum campaigning. If access to free advertising were to be given to organizations other than political parties, I believe it would be very difficult to establish workable criteria for the selection of such organizations.

>> In any case, as a presenter of a bill, I intend to give ear to a wide range of views and to respond with due flexibility.


AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

>> Many opinions were expressed in opposition to the ban on broadcast advertising during the seven-day period preceding the voting day. Against this backdrop, I was very impressed by the comment made by Mr. IMAI to the effect that while he generally trusted the good sense of the Japanese people who viewed television advertising with due wisdom, he did not trust the television companies who continue to carry commercial advertisements for consumer loan companies.

>> It is desirable for the broadcast media to adopt voluntary restraints based on their own good sense. But what if they fail to do so? Given the time constraints, television advertising may target the emotions of voters and become very sensational and exaggerated in its content. Because of this danger, some forms of legal restraint are necessary.

>> I was impressed by the following: the statement from the National Association of Commercial Broadcasters in Japan that it would carefully examine whether the ban on broadcast advertising during the seven-day period preceding the voting day could have negative results; and, the meek attitude shown by the National Association of Commercial Broadcasters in Japan when it was pointed out that broadcasters were carrying harmful commercial messages from the consumer loans industry.


KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)

>> Regarding public information activities for constitutional amendment, I was impressed by the fact that the informants agreed that it was necessary to give equal treatment to arguments for and against a proposed amendment.

>> Regarding the allocation of access to free advertising to political parties based on their number of seats in the Diet, Mr. WATANABE stated his concern that this arrangement could obstruct fairness and impartiality in broadcasting.

>> The informants made the following statements regarding the ban on broadcast advertising during the seven-day period preceding the voting day. Mr. YOSHIOKA stated that the introduction of a ban during the period when public interest is at its peak while allowing free advertising by political parties to continue would aggravate the problems of inequality. Prof. YAMADA Kenta stated that the ban constituted excessive restriction of the freedom of expression, and that the preferential treatment accorded to political parties in the allocation of access to free advertising was problematic.

>> Regarding membership in the Public Relations Council, Mr. YOSHIOKA stated that proportionate allocation of membership based on the number of seats held in the Diet would give rise to questions of fairness. Prof. YAMADA Kenta pointed out that proportionate allocation of membership contained various problems that needed to be discussed, such as the disparity between the number of seats held in the Diet and the percentage of votes received under the single-seat constituencies system.

>> These statements have made it obvious that both the ruling parties' bill and that of the Democratic Party of Japan provide for a public information system that works to the advantage of constitutional amendment. Furthermore, this is an issue that presents a fundamental question on how Article 96 of the Constitution should be understood.

>> The following can be said about both the bills: (a) the arrangements contained in the bills have the potential for suppressing national referendum campaigning; and, (b) the arrangements for public information are designed to work to the advantage of those favoring constitutional amendment. The proposed arrangements will not contribute to raising voter turnout levels, and it is clear that they are arrangements under which constitutional amendments may be ratified with the approval of only a small percentage of the people.


TSUJIMOTO Kiyomi (Social Democratic Party of Japan)

>> Obviously, no restrictions should be placed on the media. However, as was pointed out by the informants, unlimited access to paid broadcast advertising may undermine fairness because of differences in financial resources. I once again felt that we should consider the introduction of some form of rules to ensure fairness.

>> Regarding the allocation of access to free advertising to political parties, the majority of the informants argued for equal allocation to those in favor and against a constitutional amendment. The exclusive allocation of access to free advertising to political parties is problematic. Prof. YAMADA Kenta argued that due consideration should be given to providing citizen groups and other organizations with a forum for discussion.

>> Regarding membership in the Public Relations Council, Mr. YOSHIOKA stated that membership should be equally allocated to those in favor and those opposed to a constitutional amendment. Prof. YAMADA Kenta argued that the positioning of political parties at the center of discussions is very different from allowing them to play a central role in disseminating information to the public. This statement is worthy of note.

>> The reference to a "concurring vote of two-thirds or more" in Article 96 of the Constitution pertains exclusively to the initiation of an amendment. In my view, after an amendment has been initiated, equal treatment must be given to arguments both for and against the amendment. Mr. SUGANUMA indicated that he concurred with me on this matter. MR. WATANABE stated that the intent of Article 96 providing for national referendums is that the role of the Diet ends with the initiation of an amendment. He pointed out that after an amendment has been initiated, the matter devolves upon the people's autonomous judgment based on wide-ranging public discussion. This is an obvious conclusion from the perspective of the sovereignty of the people.

>> When a proposed amendment is presented to the people, the principle of proportionate allocation should not be applied, as this constitutes a criterion internal to the Diet. Arguments for and against a proposed amendment should receive equal treatment in public information activities, and the organ delegated with the task of public information must be managed fairly and impartially and must make objective judgments.

>> As Prof. YAMADA Kenta pointed out, discussions leading to deliberations on the bills have just begun. We must further deepen our discussions in the future.

Main points of questions put to presenters of the bills

HAYAKAWA Chuko (Liberal Democratic Party)

(Comment)

>> Procedural legislation for constitutional amendment was not enacted for 60 years of the postwar period. The mission of this Special Committee is to make sure such a law is enacted. I hope the Subcommittee will make its best efforts to adjust the two bills by engaging in sincere discussions that transcend the respective positions of the presenters of the bills and those committed to preserving the Constitution in its present form.

>> Regarding the scope of eligible voters, in light of our past discussions, I have come to the conclusion that the minimum voting age should be lowered to 18.

>> The examination of the bills for a national referendum law must be aimed at creating a system that will infuse the people with a real sense that the "people are themselves engaged in creating their own basic law."

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

>> Regarding media reporting, the original plan was to include certain restrictions and limitations. However, in the course of discussing the bill, the decision was made to leave this to voluntary restrictions adopted by the media. What are your views on this matter?

(Comment)

>> I do not take a positive stance on the newly posed question of allocating free advertising to organizations other than political parties. However, I would like the Subcommittee to discuss this question thoroughly.


NAGATSUMA Akira (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

(Comment)

>> Regarding restrictions on the media, there are various unresolved questions in both the ruling parties' bill and the Democratic Party of Japan's bill. However, it is appropriate to basically leave the matter to self-regulation and voluntary restrictions.

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

>> I would like the government and ruling parties to make an explicit statement to the effect that they will not in any way interfere in or apply pressure on news programs that report on national referendums. Questions asked from the floor in town meetings on education reform have become a serious problem. I would like the government and ruling parties to pledge that questions posed in meetings related to national referendums will be appropriately asked.

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

>> Regarding the ban on broadcast advertising during a seven-day period preceding the voting day, the length of the period of the ban differs among various foreign countries. What reason did the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan have for choosing a seven-day period? Some have argued that the ban should be put only on the day before voting or on the voting day. What are your views on this matter?

>> The bills submitted by the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan agree on how access to free advertising should be allocated to political parties. Both state that the allocation shall be determined by the Public Relations Council based on the number of seats held in the Diet by each political party. I am of the opinion that access should be allocated equally to those in favor and those opposed to a proposed constitutional amendment. What are your views on this matter?

(Comment)

>> Any ill-considered interference in the media will have a serious suppressive impact. I would ask that the presenters of the ruling parties' bill to strictly adhere to the statements they have made today.


ISHII Keiichi (New Komeito)

(Comment)

>> Although it is very important for the Subcommittee to delve deeply into discussions of subjects presented to it, this creates an information gap between members who belong to the Subcommittee and those who do not. There should be a certain time lag between meetings of the Subcommittee and meetings of the Special Committee to allow us time to read the provisional draft minutes of the proceedings of the Subcommittee.

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

>> In the recent Subcommittee meeting, informants from the National Association of Commercial Broadcasters in Japan and the Japan Federation of Bar Associations stated that they could by no means accept the ban on broadcast advertising during the seven-day period preceding the voting day. What reasons did you have for adopting this restriction?

>> What is your response to the argument that free advertising should be provided to organizations other than political parties?

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

>> I would like to know whether you are prepared to consider the provision of free advertising to organizations other than political parties, as in Poland where access to free advertising is extended to organizations that satisfy certain requirements.

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

>> Regarding the criterion for the allocation of free advertising to political parties, it has been argued that instead of proportionate allocation based on the number of seats in the Diet, free advertising should be equally allocated between those in favor and those opposed to the proposed constitutional amendment. What are your views on this matter?

>> Regarding membership in the Public Relations Council, it has been argued that instead of proportionate allocation based on the number of seats in the Diet, membership should be equally allocated between those in favor and those opposed to the amendment, and that the views of people outside the Diet should be heard. What are your views on this matter?


KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)

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

>> The Diet is in a position to seek the people's ratification of constitutional amendments that it has initiated and presented to the public. Given this position, it has been argued that it is questionable whether the Diet can remain neutral and impartial toward a proposed amendment. I would like to ask how you interpret Article 96 and what you understand to be the relation between national referendums and the Diet as the initiator of amendments.

>> In both the ruling parties' bill and the Democratic Party of Japan's bill, membership in the Public Relations Council is allocated in proportion to the number of seats held in the Diet. The reason given for this is that the Council is an organization of the Diet. However, the salient feature of the constitutional amendment procedure is that judgment on the ratification of a proposed amendment stands apart from the initiation of the amendment and devolves wholly upon the people in whom sovereignty resides. Thus, would it not be correct to say that the proposed membership of the Public Relations Council is inappropriate?

>> Why is membership in the Public Relations Council allocated in proportion to the number of seats in the Diet? The explanation given in the plenary session was that this arrangement reflects the popular will as expressed at the time of the initiation of the amendment. However, if the distribution of seats in the Diet at the time of the initiation of the amendment truly reflects the popular will, what need would there be to conduct a national referendum? I believe the explanation given in the plenary session violates the intent of Article 96, which prescribes the national referendum system.


TSUJIMOTO Kiyomi (Social Democratic Party)

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

>> Regarding membership in the Public Relations Council, where did the idea of giving "consideration" to opposition parties come from?

>> In the process of constitutional amendment, the Diet is merely the initiator of amendments. After an amendment has been initiated, everything must be passed on to the sovereign people for their judgment. In this context, every possible effort must be made to create a neutral and impartial public information organ. Participation in public election administration is not based on the number of seats held in the Diet. Rather, the criterion used is the number of candidates running for office. The criterion for the allocation of free advertising should be reconsidered. I believe there is room to reconsider the whole matter from the perspective of the relation between the Diet as the initiator of amendments and the people as the source of sovereignty.

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

>> Suppose free advertising is evenly allocated among political parties. This kind of arrangement runs the risk of being heavily influenced by political conditions and other developments. We should further examine the equal allocation of free advertising to those in favor and those opposed to an amendment.

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

>> What kind of information are you assuming will be published in the National Referendum Official Gazette? It will be very difficult to formulate an objective commentary on a proposed amendment. Do you not think that the term "commentary" should be revised?

>> What kind of explanatory meetings do you assume will be held by the Public Relations Council? I believe explanatory meetings should be held in all prefectures throughout Japan. In that case, a publicity period of 60 to 180 days would seem to be too short.

(Comment)

>> The respective presenters of the bills submitted by the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan do not share the same understanding even on matters that are common to both bills. This points to the need to continue our discussions.