Eighth Meeting

Thursday, December 7, 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)

Questions were put to the following presenters of the two abovementioned bills: Mr. FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party), Mr. SONODA Yasuhiro (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents), Mr. AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito), Mr. YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party), Mr. KATO Katsunobu (Liberal Democratic Party), Mr. EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents), Mr. SUZUKI Katsumasa (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents), Mr. HANASHI Yasuhiro (Liberal Democratic Party), Mr. OGAWA Junya (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents), and Mr. SAITO Tetsuo (New Komeito).


Members who put questions to the presenters of the bills:


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

ARAI Etsuji (Liberal Democratic Party)

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

>> Have the two bills been designed to facilitate the expression of approval or disapproval for a constitutional amendment by voters? What are your views on the definition of "majority?"

>> It is very important to provide information so the people can decide whether to accept or reject a proposed amendment. Will sufficient information be provided for decision-making?

>> How long should the publicity period between the initiation of an amendment and voting be?

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

>> The scope of specified public service personnel prohibited from participating in national referendum campaigning includes judges, public prosecutors and others. Isn't the scope of this ban too wide?

>> Civil servants and others are prohibited from participating in national referendum campaigning in their official capacities. Because the concept of "use of official position" is ambiguous, doesn't this give rise to the risk of excessive restriction?

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

>> What is the appropriate length of time for restricting the broadcasting of advertising prior to voting?

>> What ideas do you have in mind for raising the voter turnout rate?


KONDO Motohiko (Liberal Democratic Party)

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

>> The ruling parties' bill contains penalties against the participation of civil servants and others in national referendum campaigning using their official positions. Considering the restrictive effect of penalties, isn't this a little too severe? Comments have been made indicating willingness to revise this point. I would like to know what your current thinking is on this matter.

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

>> The bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan contains no provisions concerning the participation of civil servants in national referendum campaigning using their official positions. Is it not necessary to make provisions against serious and malicious cases?

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

>> Why is crime of bribery specified so narrowly in the ruling parties' bill? Mr. FUNADA, a co-sponsor of the ruling parties' bill, has indicated the intent to further narrow the specifications of bribery. What would be the purpose of a further narrowing? If the specifications were narrowed further, would it remain possible to act effectively against bribery?

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

>> What is your intention in including in your bills certain "cautionary provisions concerning application" of the provisions pertaining to national referendum campaigning and penalties?

>> Will the Cabinet be empowered to submit proposals for constitutional amendment?

>> It is my understanding that the Constitution Examination Board will be created by reorganizing the present Research Commission on the Constitution. The present Regulations of the Research Commission on the Constitution of the House of Representatives cover such matters as the holding of meetings when the Diet is not in session and the principle of open-door deliberations. Will these regulations be generally carried over and applied to the Constitution Examination Board?

>> It is my understanding that the Constitution Examination Board will dedicate itself to examining the needs and direction of constitutional amendments for the first two or three years. Can you provide an image of how this research will be undertaken?


HIRAOKA Hideo (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

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

>> Article 96 of the Constitution contains provisions for a "special referendum" and voting "at such election as the Diet shall specify." If the bills under consideration negate the latter, would this not make them unconstitutional?

>> The possibility remains for national referendums to be conducted conjointly with local elections. Will this not create the same kind of problems as would arise if referendums were conducted conjointly with national elections?

>> Local referendums conducted under a special law applicable only to one local public entity provided for in Article 95 of the Constitution differ from national referendums in that, unless otherwise specified, the provisions of the Public Offices Election Law apply to local referendums. Shouldn't the local referendum system under the Local Autonomy Special Law be established in line with the specifications of the national referendum system?

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

>> Mr. FUNADA has indicated that a three-year transitional period will be allowed for the enactment of related laws to lower the minimum voting age to 18. Which of the two following meanings is intended by this statement: (a) that revisions of the related laws will go into effect after three years; or, (b) that revisions of the related laws will be enacted after three years?

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

>> Are the presenters of the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan in agreement with the proposal to enact, but not enforce, revisions of the related laws after three years?

>> Suppose a multiple number of initiatives are presented to the voters in the same national referendum. What do you think of the proposal to have separate ballots for each initiative, and for each ballot to include a box for "abstain" ?

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

>> From the wording of Article 96 and the English translation at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, "majority" is interpreted to mean the majority of all votes cast. Shouldn't the denominator in the definition of "majority" be the total number of votes cast?

>> Suppose a lawsuit is filed for the nullification of referendum results and a judgment is handed down suspending the effectuation of the constitutional amendment. How would this affect the promulgation and putting into force of the constitutional amendment?

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

>> Suppose a lawsuit is filed for the nullification of referendum results and a judgment is handed down suspending only part of the vote. In such a case, what would be the scope of a second ballot? Would a second ballot be held with the voting results from other districts already known?


OSAKA Seiji (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

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

>> The overseas research mission of this Special Committee reported a comment comparing national referendums to a beast freed from its cage. I also believe there are limits to how effective national referendums can be in gauging the will of the people. In governor and mayoral elections, the winners are sometimes people whom the electorate never expected to win. As such, elections can lead to results that are at variance with the popular will. What are your views on this matter?

>> Suppose a national referendum is conducted, not concerning the Constitution, but concerning a matter of general government policy. How do you think the people would view the results of such a referendum?

>> Suppose there have been no procedural illegalities in a national referendum on constitutional amendment, but that it is felt that the results are at variance with the popular will. What are your views on possible corrective measures that can be taken in such a case? What are your views on steps that can be taken to prevent variance with the popular will?

>> What are your views on the idea that the enactment of a national referendum law for constitutional amendment should be discussed earnestly and quietly, regardless of the contents of amendments at a time when the debate on constitutional amendment has quieted down? Is now an appropriate time for enacting a national referendum law for constitutional amendment?

>> It has been pointed out that discussions for the enactment of a national referendum law for constitutional amendment are inevitably predicated on the intent to amend the Constitution. If so, it seems to me that no matter when such discussions are undertaken, the debate on constitutional amendment will not remain in a quiet and suspended state. What are your views on this?


ISHII Keiichi (New Komeito)

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

>> Comments have been made by the presenters of both bills indicating willingness to compromise on the method of marking ballots. I believe differences between the two bills were minor to begin with, and would like to hear of your resolve to reach a speedy agreement on a revised bill.

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

>> Suppose the method of marking ballots is revised to reduce the number of invalid ballots, as has been suggested by the presenters of the ruling parties' bill. In this case, is it acceptable to you to define "majority" as the majority of the total number of valid ballots cast?

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

>> Regarding the adoption of a minimum voter turnout requirement, the argument that this may be unconstitutional is a convincing argument. However, how would you view the validity of a national referendum with an extremely low voter turnout rate?

>> What image do you have of a system of preliminary national referendums? Will your bills contain explicit provisions for referring this matter to the Constitution Examination Board for deliberation?

>> What are your views on the argument that discussions predicated on the amendment of the Constitution should be referred to an organ other than the Constitution Examination Board?


FUKUSHIMA Yutaka (New Komeito)

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

>> I believe it is very important for the ruling and opposition parties to reach a speedy agreement, and would like to hear of your determination to reach a consensus.

>> Because the people do not have a sufficient awareness of the Constitution, I believe it is necessary to more fully cover the Constitution in school education. What are your views on this?

>> I believe the media have important roles and responsibilities in the process of constitutional amendment. What are your views on the position and significance of the media, including how the legislative branch should interact with the media?

>> In initiating and presenting a proposed constitutional amendment to the people, what role should the political parties play in stimulating public interest and awareness?

>> There are certain issues on which there is no public consensus, such as problems related to the interpretation of history. To forge a consensus and a unified awareness on such issues, I believe it is necessary for the legislative branch to take active steps to conduct discussions in full view of the public. What are your views on this matter?


KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)

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

>> An overwhelming majority of the petitions submitted to the Diet oppose the enactment of a procedural law for constitutional amendment. Despite this do you still believe that public support for the enactment of procedural law for constitutional amendment is growing?

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

>> There are signs that the Abe Cabinet is preparing to push for amendment through re-interpretation of the Constitution. This is intended to create "discrepancies between the Constitution and current conditions" through the use of political power. The enactment of a procedural law for constitutional amendment under these conditions would do nothing but to promote amendment of the Constitution.

>> According to an informant, "ratification" referred to in Article 96 of the Constitution only asks for expressions of approval, and does not ask for expressions of disapproval. What is your interpretation of Article 96?

>> The ruling parties' bill defines "majority" as the majority of valid ballots cast, which makes it possible to ratify an amendment with minority approval. How would this be a true reflection of the popular will?

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

>> The bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan defines "majority" as the majority of the total ballots cast. But this also leaves room for ratification with minority approval. Granted that consideration should be given to the freedom to "abstain" by not going to polling stations, but this does not mean that a low voter turnout is acceptable. What are your views on this matter?

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

>> I do not think that the explanation that there may be certain issues in which people do not have much interest, such as amendments concerning technical matters, is sufficient reason for permitting constitutional amendment to be made by minority approval. What your views on this?

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

>> Provisions are made for the establishment of a Public Relations Council in the Diet, which would have primary responsibility for public relations activities. Is it not inappropriate for the Diet, which is the initiator of constitutional amendments, to itself act as the primary agent for public relations?

>> Regarding access to free advertising by political parties, I admit that public relations activities by political parties are important. But are there any rational reasons for giving preferential treatment to political parties only?

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

>> Even if a political party voluntarily distributes its allotment of free advertising to civic groups and others, would this not be essentially preferential treatment to political parties?

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

>> Concerning the ban on paid broadcast advertising during the seven days prior to voting, a statement was made that thought is being given to the possibility of lengthening the period of the ban to before the start of absentee balloting. Does this mean that the only form of advertising permitted would be the free advertising allocated to political parties, and that all general forms of paid broadcast advertising would be banned during this period?

>> Regarding the ban on participation in national referendum campaigning by civil servants in their official capacities, I understand a revision is currently under consideration for eliminating penalties. However, the mere existence of this provision will have a suppressive impact on the free expression of views. Why has this provision been included in the bill?

(Comment)

>> The discussions in our session today inevitably lead me to say that various problems contained in the bills remain unresolved. The fact is that the bills are being made even worse through these revisions. There is no choice for us but to reject such bills.


TSUJIMOTO Kiyomi (Social Democratic Party)

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

>> Statements were made to the effect that revisions are being considered. The bills provide for the allocation of free advertising to political parties based on their number of seats in the Diet. What is the thinking behind this?

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

>> In explaining the allocation of free advertising based on the number of seats, Mr. FUNADA stated that waiting rooms in the Diet building were also allocated according to the number of seats held in the Diet. I believe that national referendums for constitutional amendment and the allocation of waiting rooms in the Diet building are completely different kinds of issue. What are your views on this?

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

>> Who is going to write the "summarization" and the "commentary" that is supposed to appear in the Official Gazette?

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

>> The bills submitted by the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan both contain the same provisions concerning the "commentary" to appear in the Official Gazette. The other day, the presenters of the ruling parties' bill stated that the "commentary" would provide an "easy-to-understand explanation of the proposed constitutional amendment." On the other hand, presenters of the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan have stated that the "commentary" would be devoid of any discretionary content and would consist of such materials as the text of the proposed constitutional amendment, a summarization of the amendment, and a comparison of the text of the proposed amendment against the present text of the Constitution. Given this discrepancy in positions, I would like to once again request an explanation.

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

>> When, where and in what form do you intend to hold "explanatory meetings?" Are explanatory meetings necessary in the first place?

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

>> Access to financial resources will create extreme disparities in the ability to run advertising on television. In light of this fact, some have advocated that limits should be placed on how much money can be spent. I would like to ask Mr. FUNADA to express his views on this question.

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

>> Mr. YAMADA of the National Association of Commercial Broadcasters stated that advertising related to national referendums for constitutional amendment would be unusual or unprecedented in content, and that therefore there were many problems that needed to be considered. What are your views on such advertising?

(To the presenters from different parties)

>> The bills submitted by the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan both state that each amendment initiated may cover a number of "matters that are related in content." I would like to ask the parties that have submitted bills to answer the following question. Approximately how many issues do you expect will be presented to the people in a single national referendum? In particular, how does the New Komeito, which advocates the approach of "adding to the Constitution," view this matter?

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

>> Suppose the Liberal Democratic Party's "draft constitution" were to be presented to the people in a national referendum. How many separate initiatives for amendment would it entail?

(To the presenters from different parties)

>> The provisions of Article 9 Paragraph 2 of the "draft constitution" identify the Self-Defense Forces as a self-defense army and allow for it to engage in overseas activities. Do you interpret these two provisions to constitute "matters that are related in content?" In order to accurately reflect the popular will, should these two provisions come under two separate initiatives or under a single initiative?

(Comment)

>> Regarding the meaning of the expression "matters that are related in content", only vague discussions have been held thus far. However, to ensure that the popular will is accurately reflected, this must be specifically discussed. We need to further deepen our discussions of this issue, including hearing informants' opinions.


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

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

>> To properly reflect the will of the people in the Constitution, I believe we should aim to finalize a bill that as many parties as possible are prepared to support. What are your views on this matter?

>> We have heard the criticism that there is no growing public support and understanding for the need to enact a national referendum law. How do you respond to this?

>> Do you expect that national referendums for constitutional amendment will be conducted simultaneously with national elections?

>> Some have argued that the dissolution of the Diet and the general elections of 2005 were carried out like a national referendum. Is this argument correct, and what are your views on a preliminary national referendum system?

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

>> For what reason is the minimum voting age set at 20 in the ruling parties' bill? Presenters of the ruling parties' bill have stated they are willing to consider the following revision: to stipulate a minimum voting age of 18 in the main body of the law, but to adopt a minimum voting age of 20 until such time as provisions are revised to lower the age requirement to 18 in other laws. What reasons and what developments lie in the background of this statement?

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

>> Do you believe that the ruling and opposition parties can come to an agreement on a revised bill involving adjustment of the minimum voting age?

>> The presenters of both bills have stated that they are prepared to revise the method of balloting to more accurately reflect the will of the people. What progress has been made in this area?

>> I believe the questions of whether or not to revise the Constitution and the directions to be taken in amendment should be researched by an organ that is not empowered to examine proposed constitutional amendments. This examination should be thorough and not subject to any time restrictions. What are your views on this matter?

>> The bill submitted by the ruling parties and the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan both accept the following as cause for nullification of national referendum results: (a) procedural violations by administrative authorities; (b) serious violations of rules preventing large numbers of voters from voting according to their free judgment; and, (c) errors in the final tally of ballots. Why are the causes for nullification limited to only these three cases?

>> Suppose a constitutional amendment that exceeds the limits of amendment is ratified. How should the courts rule in such cases?

>> What methods are you considering for informing the public of the contents of the legislation under discussion?

>> Submission of a proposal for constitutional amendment requires the support of a minimum of 100 members in the House of Representatives, and a minimum of 50 members in the House of Councillors. Why is the required level of support higher than for legislation in general?