Ninth Meeting

Thursday, December 14, 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)

[1] 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. Finally, questions were put to the following presenters of the bills: Mr. EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents), Mr. FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party), Mr. AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito), Mr. HANASHI Yasuhiro (Liberal Democratic Party) and Mr. SONODA Yasuhiro (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents).

Subcommittee members who made supplementary comments:

Members who put questions to the presenters of the bills:


[2] Following the statements made by presenters of the bills, statements were made by members.

Presenters of the bills who made statements:

Members who made statements:

Regarding investigation when the Diet is not in session

[1] By majority vote, it was resolved to petition the Speaker of the House of Representatives concerning investigation of the two abovementioned bills, the national referendum system for the amendment of the Constitution of Japan, and the Constitution of Japan during the period in which the Diet is not in session.

Those voting in favor: Liberal Democratic Party, Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents, New Komeito, People's New Party and Group of Independents

Those voting in opposition: Japanese Communist Party, Social Democratic Party

[2] By majority vote, it was resolved to maintain the Subcommittee for Considering Bills on Procedures for Amending the Constitution of Japan in the event matters were referred to this Committee by the House to consider during the period in which the Diet is not in session.

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

[3] By majority vote, it was resolved to entrust the following matters to the Chairman in the event matters were submitted to the Special Committee for investigation during the period in which the Diet is not in session: issuance of summons to informants to appear before the Special Committee; issuance of summons to informants and government informants to appear before the Subcommittee; and, requests for approval of dispatch of members.

Those voting in favor: Liberal Democratic Party, Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents, New Komeito, People's New Party and Group of Independents

Those voting in opposition: Japanese Communist Party, Social Democratic Party

A brief speech was made by Committee Chairman NAKAYAMA.


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 December 12 and heard from the following informants: Mr. ISHIMURA Eijiro, Managing Director, NHK; Mr. UEMURA Takeshi, Deputy Chief, Editorial Board, The Yomiuri Shimbun, Tokyo Head Office; Mr. KONDO Noriaki, Editorial Department, The Mainichi Newspapers; Mr. NAKASHIZU Keiichiro, Deputy Editorial Chief, The Sankei Shimbun, Tokyo Office; and Mr. YOSHIOKA Keisuke, Vice President, Japan Federation of Bar Associations. 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 matters related to restrictions on national referendum campaigning and related penalties, and restrictions on the media and public relations activities. 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 shared with the Special Committee for Research on the Constitution of Japan.

Mr. ISHIMURA Eijiro recalled his appearance before the Special Committee in April and his advocacy that the placement of restrictions solely on the broadcast media was problematic from the perspective of freedom of expression, even if voluntary restrictions were adopted and third-party organizations were established. He stated that he was appreciative of the fact that the bills submitted by the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan had been revised along the lines of his argument to ensure the principle of freedom in reporting.

Mr. ISHIMURA then explained NHK's basic stance and philosophy in broadcasting. This was summarized as broadcasting easy-to-understand information in a fair, impartial and accurate manner from an independent and self-regulating position, and responding to the requests of viewers in compliance with the provisions of the Broadcast Law and related laws.

Mr. ISHIMURA went on to express the following views. [1] As a general rule, all sides will be free to place opinion ads in the media. However, some arrangement will be needed to prevent extreme imbalances in the broadcast volumes of advertising for and against an amendment. [2] It is necessary to discuss the appropriateness of a ban on broadcast advertising immediately prior to voting, while paying due attention to independent and self-regulating decision-making by broadcasters. [3] Further discussion is necessary on whether or not it is appropriate to limit access to free broadcast advertising to those political parties with seats in the Diet. [4] The criterion for the allocation of access to free broadcasting should be revised so that positions for and against an amendment receive equal treatment. [5] While placement of the Public Relations Council in the Diet is understandable, due consideration must be given to freedom of the press. Further room remains for considering such aspects of the Public Relations Council as its membership structure and functions. [6] The National Referendum Official Gazette should carry a diverse range of materials. These should be presented in an easy-to-understand manner and from multiple perspectives.

Mr. UEMURA Takeshi expressed the following views on general issues. [1] In a national referendum, it is desirable to have broadly based, free and candid discussions. However, necessary measures must be taken to act responsibly for the future of the country and to preserve fairness in discussion and voting. [2] On the question of whether unlimited opinion advertising should be permitted, the answer will differ between the print media, such as newspapers, and broadcast media, such as television and radio.

Mr. UEMURA continued with the following statements. [1] Regarding the ban on broadcast advertisements in the last seven days prior to voting, a flood of overheated advertising immediately prior to voting should be avoided because this might undermine the significance of voting. [2] It is justified to limit access to free advertising to political parties. [3] Equal treatment of positions for and against an amendment in the allocation of free advertising perhaps is understandable. On the other hand, allocation based on the number of seats in the Diet has its own valid reasons. To a certain degree, the "popular will" will have been expressed in the process of initiation of an amendment, and simple equality does not equal fairness. [4] It is justified to place the Public Relations Council in the Diet, and it is justified to allocate its membership based on the number of seats held in the Diet.

Mr. KONDO Noriaki expressed the following views on general issues. [1] Media restrictions violate the freedom of the press guaranteed by the Constitution. Basically, all forms of restriction should be opposed. [2] A system must be designed to ensure free constitutional debate to enable the people in whom sovereignty resides to make correct judgments in national referendums for accepting or rejecting constitutional amendments. [3] Advertising is a form of expression. Basically, all forms of restrictions that obstruct free expression and the circulation of information should be opposed.

Mr. KONDO continued with the following statements. [1] Regarding the question of whether unlimited opinion advertising should be permitted in the media, basically no restrictions should be adopted. [2] The ban on broadcast advertising in the seven days preceding voting should be opposed. [3] Regarding the pros and cons of limiting access to free advertising to political parties, basically it is desirable to also allocate free advertising to groups other than political parties. [4] Regarding the allocation of access to free advertising, from the perspective of fairness, equal treatment should be given to positions for and against an amendment. [5] If the Public Relations Council is to be placed in the Diet, in the very least, experts from outside should be brought in as members. Furthermore, members should be chosen so that persons for and against an amendment are equally represented in the Council. [6] Regarding the content to appear in the National Referendum Official Gazette, equal treatment of positions for and against an amendment and easiness to understand should be the rule.

Mr. NAKASHIZU Keiichiro expressed the following views. The preservation and development of democracy and freedom constitutes the most important mission of the media. Therefore, the position taken by The Sankei Shimbun is that, in the event of a national referendum for constitutional amendment, its mission will be to present the public with a diverse range of information and materials in an accurate and fair manner. The development of a procedural law for constitutional amendment is highly significant and should be enacted at an early date.

Mr. NAKASHIZU also made the following statements. [1] Restrictions should not be applied to opinion advertising in the media because these provide a diverse range of information and materials that voters can use in making their decisions. [2] Broadcast advertising immediately preceding voting should not be banned because this is the period in which discussion and debate are at their peak. [3] Fundamentally, access to free advertising should be allocated to political parties. Allocation to other groups should be considered very cautiously. [4] Regarding the criterion for the allocation of free advertising, maximum consideration should be given to minority opinions. However, basically, due respect should be accorded to the fact that a constitutional amendment that has been initiated has already gained the support of a two-thirds super-majority in both Houses of the Diet. [5] The Public Relations Council is supposed to function as an objective and neutral organ for public relations activities. Basically, its membership should be based on criteria that pay due respect to the fact of initiation. [6] The National Referendum Official Gazette should explain the reasons for amendment and carry views both for and against the amendment. [7] From the perspective of ensuring fairness in national referendums, the provisions of the ruling parties' bill concerning the scope of specified public service personnel, the ban on the participation of civil servants in national referendum campaign activities in their official capacity, and the specification of the crime of bribery are acceptable.

Mr. YOSHIOKA Keisuke expressed the following views. First, regarding restrictions on national referendum campaign activities, the provisions and procedures of the Public Offices Election Law should not apply to national referendums for constitutional amendment. On the grounds that it is important to ensure that the people are able to freely express their views and to engage in free and frank discussion, Mr. YOSHIOKA expressed his opposition to related restrictions as follows. [1] The scope of specified public service personnel should not include judges, public prosecutors, members of the Public Safety Commission, and police officers. [2] The participation of civil servants in national referendum campaigning in their official capacity should not be banned, and provisions for the crime of bribery should not be adopted because these can have a significant suppressive effect on activities and the free expression of views.

Next, Mr. YOSHIOKA expressed his opposition to restrictions on opinion advertising as follows. [1] Opinion advertising in the media should not be restricted, and maximum freedom should be allowed. This should be the fundamental principle. Views for and against an amendment should be treated equally. Some arrangements should be made to avoid unfairness resulting from disparities in financial resources. [2] Thought should be given to arrangements allowing groups and citizens other than political parties to have access to free advertising. [3] Restrictions on broadcasting prior to the voting day violate the freedom of expression and cannot be permitted.

Finally, Mr. YOSHIOKA expressed the following views concerning the Public Relations Council. In order to ensure fairness and equality in public relations activities, members of the Public Relations Council should be appointed to equally reflect positions for and against an amendment. Thought should also be given to the possibility of appointing members from outside the Diet.

In light of the views expressed by the informants, discussions and an active exchange of views took place among Subcommittee members and informants.

I would like to comment in greater detail concerning the main subject of this session, which covered matters related to restrictions on national referendum campaigning and related penalties, and restrictions on the media and public relations activities. First of all, the following views were exchanged concerning restrictions on the participation of civil servants and educators in national referendum campaign activities in their official capacities. [1] Charges of abuse of official power may be brought in certain cases. But other than that, it is difficult to imagine any actionable cases involving the abuse of official positions. This elicited the following comment from presenters of the ruling parties' bill. [2] This problem will be avoided by adopting more specific definitions that will not have a suppressive effect, and by including cautionary provisions related to the application of the law.

Regarding the pros and cons of applying the restrictions contained in the National Public Service Law and other laws concerning "political activities," a statement was made advocating that these restrictions should not be applied to national referendum campaign activities. It was further noted that, whereas in the previous meeting of the Special Committee presenters of the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan had indicated their intent to revise their bill to include an explicit provision against the application of the restrictions on "political activities" contained in the National Public Service Law and other laws to national referendum campaign activities, the position of the ruling parties on this matter remained unclear. Responding to this statement, presenters of the ruling parties' bill indicated that it was also their intent to make such a revision in their bill.

Regarding restrictions on the media and public relations activities, the pros and cons of placing limits on paid opinion advertising on television and other media were discussed. Statements were made emphasizing the problems of unfairness that would result from differences in access to financial resources. It was argued that some form of ceiling should be placed on such advertising to ensure an equal volume of opinions for and against an amendment.

This argument elicited the following responses. [1] Various options are available for ensuring equal treatment of opinions for and against an amendment. First, provisions can be included in the bill instructing due consideration be given to equal treatment. Second, the ban on broadcast advertising during the seven-day period preceding voting acts as a form of ceiling on advertising volume. This function can be augmented by extending the period of the ban to 14 days. [2] Instead of applying restrictions based on the content of the opinion, one option would be to formally and completely ban all broadcast advertising between the "day on which the constitutional amendment is initiated by the Diet and the voting day."

The following view was expressed concerning the adoption of a "complete ban." [1] A "complete ban" would violate the freedom of expression and would be unconstitutional. The matter should be left to the discretion and self-regulation of the media. This elicited the following response. [2] Media self-regulation may be justified in relation to government authority. However, it is doubtful whether it can be justified in relation to civic groups where media self-regulation would arbitrarily limit the freedom of expression of civic groups.

Regarding the pros and cons of restricting access to free advertising to political parties, the following view was expressed. [1] Access to free advertising should also be provided to groups other than political parties. This elicited the following responses. [2] In a system of parliamentary democracy, it is only natural for political parties to play a central role. [3] It will be difficult to determine what organizations other than political parties should be eligible for free advertising. This elicited the following response. [4] One option for revising the bill would be to allocate free advertising to organizations designated by the political parties.

Regarding the criteria for the allocation of access to free advertising, I believe a nearly unanimous consensus has emerged that access to free advertising should be equally allocated to those for and against an amendment.

Regarding the functions of the Public Relations Council, presenters of the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan made the following statement. It is assumed that the Public Relations Council will not be allowed to exercise any discretion in its activities. Because explanations provided in explanatory meetings would leave room for discretion, the Democratic Party of Japan seeks to revise the bill to eliminate provisions concerning explanatory meetings.

Regarding the structure of the Public Relations Council, the following views were expressed. [1] To stimulate public debate, membership should consist of Diet Members and experts selected from the public. This elicited the following response. [2] If the Public Relations Council is not allowed to exercise any discretion in its activities, the appointment of outside members is meaningless.

As chairman of the Subcommittee, my impressions of this meeting are as follows. Informants were called to the first and second meetings of the Subcommittee for discussions on matters related to restrictions on national referendum campaigning and related penalties, and restrictions on the media and public relations activities. In this fifth meeting, we revisited these themes and were able to engage in thorough discussions on pertinent issues.

Special note must be made of statements from presenters of the ruling parties' bill indicating willingness to make the following revisions. [1] Regarding the pros and cons of the application of restrictions on the political activities of civil servants, the bill will be revised to specify that such restrictions will not apply. [2] The bill will be revised to allow access to free advertising both to political parties and to organizations designated by them.

Regarding restrictions on paid opinion advertising on television and other media, the discussions led to the following points. On one hand, free expression through the media should be allowed. On the other hand, measures should be taken to prevent inequality in the presentation of opinions for and against an amendment due to differences in access to financial resources. A common awareness emerged that the problem was how to balance these two elements. However, differences of opinion persisted on the following points, where further adjustments were felt to be needed: [1] whether to restrict advertising immediately before voting, and the length of such a ban; [2] whether to include provisions calling for special consideration to be given to the equal treatment of positions for and against an amendment, and the form that such restrictions could take.

Needless to say, freedom of expression lies at the foundation of a democratic society. Free and frank national referendum campaign activities must be undertaken upon this foundation, and the media must undertake to freely report on a diverse range of views and perspectives. The people's right to know will be served by these activities, and what they glean from these activities will help them in making their decisions in voting.

With this in mind, the members have been contributing their wisdom to the discussions. As a result, I feel that we are now very close to reaching a consensus.

I believe that the subjects of this session, "restrictions on national referendum campaigning and related penalties, and restrictions on the media and public relations activities," are very important issues that will provide a foundation for people when making their decisions in voting in the national referendum. In light of the discussions conducted by the Subcommittee, I would like to ask this Special Committee to further deepen its discussions from various angles in order to find common ground on restrictions on national referendum campaigning and related penalties, and restrictions on the media and public relations activities

This concludes my report.

Main points of statements by Subcommittee members making supplementary comments

FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> Regarding the pros and cons of applying restrictions on paid broadcast advertising, we have heard two demands: that "restrictions should be avoided as much as possible," and that "inequality based on differences in financial resources should be avoided." The question is how to balance these two demands. As the seven-day ban on broadcast advertising preceding voting functions as a form of ceiling on advertising volume, I propose to extend the period of the ban to 14 days.

>> We have proposed the inclusion of provisions calling for special consideration to be given to equal treatment in advertising. Such provisions would have nothing to do with the content of advertising. Their purpose would be to ensure equal treatment in the placement of advertising in the print and broadcasting media in terms of cost, and equal access to time slots and days of the week when ads are carried. Therefore, the intent here is to ensure formal fairness. The proposal does not intend to introduce in any form new restrictions on the media.

>> Regarding the allocation of access to free advertising to groups other than political parties, it will be extremely difficult to define the details of such a system, such as what organizations should be eligible. If such a system is to be adopted, the furthest we can go is to say that political parties will be free to distribute their allocations of free advertising to organizations that they have designated.

>> We would like to delete the "commentary and other explanations" that were supposed to appear in pamphlets to be produced by the Public Relations Council because they would inevitably be discretionary in content. Regarding "explanatory meetings" to be organized by the Public Relations Council, some have advocated that this also should be deleted from the bill. However, I believe this provision should remain because of the importance of informing the public.


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

>> Regarding restrictions on paid broadcast advertising, due respect should be paid to the freedom of the press and the freedom of expression. However, from the perspective of ensuring fairness in national referendums, statements were made in the discussions of the Subcommittee favoring the extension of the duration of the ban and the inclusion of provisions calling for special consideration.

>> There is no doubt that self-regulation of the media must be respected. However, it must be verified whether self-regulation of broadcasters is enough to ensure equal access to television advertising by those for and against an amendment, and whether fairness in assignment of broadcasting time and other formal aspects of fairness can be ensured.

>> Suppose several questions are simultaneously initiated, generating a large number of possible combinations of sections of the initiative that are supported or opposed. This means there would be no clear-cut division between what is supported and what is opposed. We must discuss whether in such cases media self-regulation can really ensure fair treatment.

>> Given the existence of the National Referendum Official Gazette, there seems to be no reason to limit free access to newspaper advertising to political parties. Therefore, we are re-examining free newspaper advertising with the intent of deleting this provision.

>> We are considering a revision that would allow other organizations designated by political parties access to free broadcast advertising within the allotment given to political parties.

>> The functions of the Public Relations Council are the following: to draft a summarization of the proposed amendment and a comparative table showing the current Constitution and the proposed changes; and, to check the allocation of space to opinions in favor of and opinions opposed to the proposed amendment. As such, it is solely empowered to authorize materials that are devoid of discretionary content.

>> We are considering eliminating the explanatory meetings contained in our original bill because they will inevitably be discretionary in nature.

>> I believe the ruling parties have shown a degree of appreciation regarding the non-application of the restrictions on the political activities of civil servants.


AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

>> I have nothing to add to the Subcommittee chairman's report. Regarding the supplementary comments made by Mr. FUNADA, presenter of the ruling parties' bill, I am in full agreement with his comments, including his statements concerning revisions of the bill.


KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)

>> I would like to emphasize that in the previous meeting of the Subcommittee, all of the informants, including those favoring constitutional amendment and enactment of a procedural law for constitutional amendment, pointed to a series of problems contained in the proposed bills.

>> Under the proposed bills, access to free advertising is to be allocated solely to the political parties. But the role to be played by the Diet ends with the initiation of amendments. Thereafter, everything devolves upon the people in whom sovereignty resides. This is the basic principle enunciated in Article 96 of the Constitution. We must assign great importance to the doubts expressed on this point by various informants.

>> Regarding the ban on the participation of civil servants in national referendum campaign activities in their official capacities, we must pay due attention to statements of informants who commented that the very existence of such a provision would have a suppressive impact. They argued that this problem would not be solved even if the definition of "use of official position" were to be clearly specified or if revisions were made to delete the provisions for penalties.

>> It appears that the presenters of the bills are considering certain revisions. However, their discussions begin and end with technical issues, and no consideration is given to issues of principle. I would like to emphasize that even if the revisions they are considering are made, this would not eliminate the suspicions and concerns that the public has for the two bills.


TSUJIMOTO Kiyomi (Social Democratic Party)

>> From the perspective of the freedom of the press, restrictions on reporting and advertising are not desirable. The various informants were in agreement that these matters should be left to the media's own voluntary regulations. On the other hand, the various informants were also in agreement on the position that totally unrestricted access to opinion advertising could undermine fairness in national referendums.

>> Regarding paid broadcast advertising, the informant Mr. KONDO Noriaki stated that both the media and advertisers should adopt voluntary rules setting ceilings on the volume of advertising. This new proposal should be earnestly examined.

>> Under the proposed bills, access to free advertising is restricted to the political parties. On this issue, I am in agreement with the following statement made by the informant Mr. KONDO Noriaki. The role of the Diet strictly ends with the initiation of a constitutional amendment and thereafter it is the people in whom sovereignty resides who make the decision, not the political parties. This would become the basis of the discussions of a national referendum.

>> Regarding the Public Relations Council, most informants were of the opinion that much remains to be covered in the examination of the following questions. Should the Public Relations Council be established as a third-party organization? Should it incorporate opinions of experts and others including the selection of members from the public? These discussions gave me a very strong sense of the major disparities that exist between what the people have in mind and what can be imagined from the two bills. In deliberating on these issues, we must be acutely aware of the fact that all decisions after an amendment has been initiated devolve upon the people in whom sovereignty resides.

>> Informants expressed doubt and concern regarding the adoption of restrictions on the participation of civil servants in national referendum campaign activities. While presenters of both bills indicated their appreciation for these concerns, we must further deepen our discussions and consider various cases that can be expected to arise.

>> The discussions of the Subcommittee point to a chasm that exists between the two bills and the people's desire to ensure fair treatment of opinions for and against an amendment after its initiation. I also felt that we have much more to discuss on the subject of opinion advertising on television. In addition to these points, many issues have been identified for continued discussion, which I hope this Special Committee will take up.

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

KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)

(To the presenters of the various parties)

>> Why restrict access to free advertising to political parties? The reason given by the presenters is that it is "impossible to totally eliminate discretion" in the selection of organizations other than political parties. Is my understanding correct?

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

>> Regarding the restriction of access to free advertising to political parties, suppose a constitutional amendment has been initiated that contains a multiple number of questions. This generates a large number of possible combinations of sections of the initiative supported and opposed. Furthermore, some people do not have a political party of preference. For these reasons, I doubt that political parties can fully function as a receptacle for all possible positions in a national referendum. What are your views on this matter?

(To the presenters of the various parties)

>> Regarding restrictions on paid broadcast advertising, let us remember that the Constitution assigns foremost importance to the freedom of political expression. Is it acceptable to apply legal restrictions to this right merely because the technical problems are difficult to solve? An informant of the Subcommittee warned that creating such precedents for restricting the provisions of the Constitution for such trivial reasons could invite irremediable problems that will undermine the foundations of democratic society. What do you make of this warning?

(Comment)

>> The question of restricting paid broadcast advertising is an extremely important one because it involves the freedom of expression. This question contains various issues that must be carefully discussed. We should not short-circuit our discussions for the sake of arriving at a conclusion. I would like to point out that the bills contain many similar problems.


TSUJIMOTO Kiyomi (Social Democratic Party)

(To the presenters of the various parties)

>> Both bills stipulate that each amendment will be initiated to cover "matters that are related in content." I would like to ask the presenters of the various parties to confirm the following matter. How many questions do you expect will be presented to the people in a single national referendum?

>> The presenters stated that they intended to make revisions ensuring equal allocation of free advertising to positions for and against an amendment. Suppose a multiple number of questions are included in a single national referendum for constitutional amendment. How would free advertising be allocated if the various parties support or oppose the several sections of the initiative in different combinations?

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

>> Suppose a number of questions are presented to the people in a single national referendum, and suppose the various parties support or oppose the several sections of the initiative in different combinations. In this case, how would the membership of the Public Relations Council be structured?

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

>>It has been proposed that provisions for special consideration on the terms of advertising be adopted. Suppose a number of questions are presented in a single national referendum, and suppose that various advertisers support or oppose the several sections of the initiative in different combinations. In such cases, I believe it would be very difficult to ensure equal treatment of advertising. What are your views on this matter?

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

>> The publicity period for a proposed constitutional amendment ranges between 60 and 180 days. In light of the number of days spent by the Diet in deliberating upon an important legislative bill, I believe that 180 days is too short for ensuring full public discussion on the all-important issue of the Constitution. What are your views on this?


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)

>> What is the role of the media in national referendum campaigns?

>> Regarding restrictions on paid broadcast advertising, it was stated in Subcommittee that an extension of the period of the ban from seven days to 14 days would be considered. What is the intent of this proposal?

>> Both bills contain cautionary provisions concerning national referendum campaign activities and the application of related penalties. What is the intent of these cautionary provisions?

>> Why is the Public Relations Council to be established in the Diet?

>> Do the functions of the Public Relations Council include monitoring the neutrality of reporting by news organizations on national referendum campaigns?

Main points of statements by presenters of the bills

FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party)

>> I would like to outline the revisions that we are preparing to make in order to further improve the ruling parties' bill.

>> Regarding the minimum voting age in national referendums, following the example of many countries of the world, we intend to specify a minimum voting age of 18 in the body of the law, and to include transitional measures in the supplementary provisions.

>> The Public Relations Council will be named the "Public Relations Council on the National Referendum." To avoid arbitrariness, the National Referendum Official Gazette will not include commentaries and related materials. Instead, the information printed will consist of a comparative table showing the content of the current Constitution and the proposed changes.

>> Regarding the method of balloting, the ballots will have printed on them the words "Approve" and "Disapprove." Voters will circle the one of their choice. A ballot will be treated as valid as long as it can be clearly determined whether it is for or against an initiative.

>> The following changes will be made in our bill to avoid a suppressive impact on national referendum campaigning. [1] The bill will explicitly state that the provisions of the National Public Service Law and other laws restricting the "political activities" of civil servants will not apply. [2] Judges, public prosecutors and police officers will be excluded from scope of specified public service personnel. [3] The scope of the provisions restricting the participation of civil servants in national referendum campaigning using their official positions will be further narrowed, and provisions for penalties will be eliminated.

>> Regarding restrictions on paid broadcast advertising, we will extend the period of the ban to 14 days prior to the voting day. This will function as a form of ceiling on advertising volume. Also, the period of the ban will come into line with the start of absentee voting.

>> To ensure equal treatment of positions for and against an amendment, we will add provisions to the bill for special consideration to be given to the terms of advertising.

>> Regarding the allocation of free advertising, we will make changes ensuring equal treatment of positions for and against an amendment in both broadcast and newspaper advertising in terms of advertising time and space. Changes will also be made to allow the allocation of free advertising to groups and organizations designated by the political parties.

>> Regarding the crimes of bribery and influence peddling, criminal provisions will apply only in cases of "aggressive" solicitation. "Tangible benefits" will be limited to "such means as are not normally used in the expression of views."

>> Regarding the conditions for ratification by the people, an amendment will be ratified with the majority of "all votes cast" where this is defined to mean the total of all votes cast for or against an amendment.

>> In principle, when enacted, the bill will come into force three years after the day of its promulgation. During the period pending enforcement, the Commission on the Constitution will not engage in the examination or submission of constitutional amendments, and instead will dedicate itself to researching the Constitution. We intend to make explicit provisions for all of the above matters in our bill.

>> Regarding preliminary national referendums concerning constitutional amendment, this matter shall be delegated to the Commission on the Constitution for its consideration. The Commission will examine the matter and implement necessary measures. We intend to make explicit provisions for this in our bill.

>> The bill will contain explicit provisions for taking the necessary legislative measures for lowering the minimum voting age during the period pending enforcement.

>> The gap between the bills submitted by the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan has become very small. Through continued examination and consultation, we should be able to speedily arrive at a consensus. We hope that a conclusion will be reached on this legislation in both Houses during the forthcoming ordinary session of the Diet.


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

>> Pursuant to the discussions that we have had, I would like to explain the proposed revisions to the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan and the points that remain pending.

>> Regarding national referendums on important matters of state, we intend to discuss the following options in the Democratic Party of Japan and to reach a final conclusion: [a] the proposal to restrict the scope of such national referendums; [b] the proposal to restrict the function of such national referendums to a preliminary national referendum on constitutional amendment; and, [c] the proposal to make explicit mention of matters to be deliberated in the supplementary provisions of the bill, on the condition that the question of national referendums on important matters of state be delegated to the Commission on the Constitution.

>> Regarding the minimum voting age, if broad support for a minimum age of 18 can be confirmed, we are prepared to delete the portion that provides for a minimum voting age of 16 in exceptional cases.

>> Regarding the Public Relations Council, the bill shall explicitly indicate that its functions will be limited to those involving no discretion. Provisions related to the holding of explanatory meetings, which leaves room for the exercise of discretion, will be deleted.

>> Regarding the method of balloting, we are appreciative of the proposal made by Mr. FUNADA in that the proposed method is intended to accurately reflect the will of the people. We would like to further consider this issue, including the printing of an "Abstain" on the ballot, and reach a final conclusion.

>> Regarding the prohibition of political activities of civil servants contained in the National Public Service Law and other laws, in order to eliminate legal imbalance, we will include explicit provisions in our bill stipulating that these prohibitions shall not apply to national referendum campaign activities.

>> Regarding the ban on the participation of civil servants in national referendum campaign activities in their official capacities, we are prepared to accept the proposal of Mr. FUNADA as paralleling the thinking of the Democratic Party of Japan, provided that the intent of the proposal is that such activities will be treated as "unlawful activities" as defined under the National Public Service Law.

>> Regarding restrictions on paid broadcast advertising, we intend to discuss the following options in the Democratic Party of Japan and reach a final conclusion: [a] the proposal to extend the period of the ban to 14 days prior to the voting day; [b] the proposal to extend the period of the ban to 14 days and to include provisions for special consideration to be given to the equal treatment of positions for and against an amendment; and, [c] the proposal to adopt a total ban extending from the day on which the amendment has been initiated to the voting day.

>> Regarding the allocation of free advertising to political parties, we will delete the portions of the bill related to newspaper advertising because the National Referendum Official Gazette can substitute for such advertising. Regarding broadcast advertising, we will revise the bill to explicitly stipulate equal treatment of positions for and against an amendment in terms of hours of advertising provided. Changes will also be made to allow the allocation of free advertising to groups and organizations designated by the political parties.

>> Regarding the crimes of bribery and influence peddling, before reaching a decision on the proposal of Mr. FUNADA, we want to confirm that the proposal is unambiguous.

>> Regarding the authority of the Commission on the Constitution, we would like to revise the bill to enable it to examine the legislative bill on a general national referendum.

>> Regarding the total number of votes cast, if the method of balloting proposed by Mr. FUNADA is to be accepted, it will be necessary to explicitly stipulate that the sum of the votes cast for and against an amendment constitutes the total number of votes cast.

>> Regarding the date of effectuation, in principle, we accept the proposal made by Mr. FUNADA. That is, we accept that the law will come into force three years after the date of its promulgation, and that the Commission on the Constitution will dedicate itself to researching the Constitution in the period pending effectuation of the law. Regarding the lowering of the voting age to 18, it is acceptable to us if the necessary legislative measures are taken within three years from the date of promulgation.

>> We look forward to arriving at a revised bill during the forthcoming ordinary session of the Diet. If possible, we are hoping for enactment before the 2007 Constitution Day.

Main points of statements by members

KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)

>> Public opinion does not favor enactment of a procedural law for constitutional amendment. The start of Diet deliberations has not changed the situation. On the contrary, there is growing criticism from experts.

>> Enactment of a procedural law for constitutional amendment is aimed at revising Article 9 of the Constitution. This is very clear from the prime minister's policy speech. The people by no means desire the enactment of a procedural law for constitutional amendment that will set the stage for the revision of Article 9.

>> We have heard statements concerning the revision of both bills. But these are merely designed to facilitate constitutional amendment. This only deepens the suspicions of the people.

>> Regarding the definition of "majority," I have repeatedly warned that an amendment may be ratified with the support of a minority of the people. To say that high voter turnout rates may not be hoped for in the case of certain issues is not a valid counter-argument. It really makes no difference to revise the balloting method. So long as there is no fundamental discussion of the principle of popular sovereignty and other matters, there is no difference in the fact that the people remain absent.

>> Membership in the Public Relations Council is to be based on the number of seats held in the Diet. This provision is designed to facilitate major publicity campaigns by those favoring amendment of the Constitution. The presenters were forced to accept revisions in the allocation of access to free advertising to ensure equal treatment of positions for and against an amendment. This is virtually a confession by the presenters that both of their bills lack rationality.

>> Regarding the ban on civil servants participating in national referendum campaign activities in their official capacities, it would not make a real difference even if the "use of official position" were clearly defined and penalties deleted. These measures will not eliminate the suppressive impact on the participation of civil servants in national referendum campaign activities.

>> Why create a Commission on the Constitution as a standing organ? The aim is to constantly discuss and submit amendment proposals. Provisions concerning a joint Commission on the Constitution and the conference committee of both Houses are designed to forcibly extract a two-thirds majority in both Houses. These provisions contradict the principle of bicameralism.

>> It is very clear that the bills submitted by the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan are undemocratic. I demand that these deliberations be terminated, both bills be rejected and this Special Committee be dissolved.


TSUJIMOTO Kiyomi (Social Democratic Party)

>> We have heard explanations that the procedural law for constitutional amendment is merely an impartial and fair procedural law and that it should be discussed separately from the question of constitutional amendment. However, from the very fact that the bills provide for the establishment of a Commission on the Constitution that is supposed to examine proposals for constitutional amendment, it is amply clear that the bills before us cannot be separated from the issue of constitutional amendment.

>> A two-thirds majority in both Houses is merely the requirement for initiating amendments. The intent of Article 96 of the Constitution is that the people must pass judgment on a proposed amendment once it has been initiated. Based on this intent, it is natural to stipulate equal treatment of positions for and against an amendment once it has been initiated. Both bills stipulate that the membership of the Public Relations Council and the allocation of free advertising be based on the number of seats held in the Diet. This is indicative of the total lack of understanding of the fundamental principle of Article 96.

>> Both bills stipulate that "matters that are related in content will be initiated under a single amendment." In the course of our deliberations, no explanation was given of the criteria to be used in determining what constitutes related content. To properly reflect the popular will, I propose the adoption of the "single subject rule" seen in various countries.

>> The maximum publicity period for a constitutional amendment is 180 days. This is too short. Full-fledged public debate begins only after an amendment has been initiated. The discussion that takes place in the Diet prior to initiation does not guarantee that public awareness and understanding have been advanced.

>> The definition of the ban on the participation of civil servants in national referendum campaign activities in their official capacities, and the definition of the crimes of bribery and influence peddling, are ambiguous. The very idea of including such restrictions is indicative of the fact that the authors of the bills did not bother to stand on the side of the people in whom sovereignty resides.

>> The rules of paid broadcast advertising must be further examined. This is because it is difficult to strike a balance between freedom of expression and equal treatment of positions for and against an amendment.

>> Constitutional amendments must fully reflect the popular will. For this purpose, a minimum voter turnout ratio should be adopted, as is the case in the national and local referendum systems of various countries.

>> For the convenience of people filing lawsuits, all high courts throughout Japan should be given jurisdiction over legal actions initiated for the nullification of national referendum results. Furthermore, the question of the limits of constitutional amendment should be made subject to judicial review.

>> As I have explained, the most essential problems lie in the areas where the two bills agree and contain the same provisions. Both bills neglect the fundamental principles of national referendums, and should be rejected.