First Open Hearing

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Meeting Agenda

Bill for Law Concerning Procedures for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan (submitted by Mr. YASUOKA Okiharu and five 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)

An open hearing was held concerning the two abovementioned bills. After statements were heard from speakers, questions were put to them.

Morning Session

Speakers:

Members who put questions to the speakers:


Afternoon Session

Speakers:

  • HONDA Masatoshi, Associate Professor, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
  • YAMAHANA Ikuo, Former Member of the House of Representatives, Special Researcher, JPU Research Institute
  • TAKADA Ken, Representative, Institute for International Politics

Members who put questions to the speakers:


Main points of statements made by speakers (morning session)

ASANO Daizaburo

1. Voting procedures

>> I express my respect for your energetic efforts to enact a national referendum law that will give concrete shape to the provisions of Article 96.

>> The procedures contained in both bills are generally similar to procedures that apply in public elections, and the Election Management Councils should have little problem in administering national referendums. However, thorough preparations will be needed if the range of eligible voters is different from that in public elections.

2. Participation of civil servants

>> In public elections, voters vote for specific individuals and parties from among a number of candidates and parties. In national referendums, voters only express their approval or disapproval of a proposal that has been initiated.

>> In public elections, strong ties exist between candidates and voters. Hence, unless restrictions are put in place, the activities of candidates and voters may exceed socially accepted limits and can easily lead to illegal acts. This situation will not exist in national referendums. Therefore, it would be rational for restrictions on the activities of civil servants in national referendum campaigns to be different from those that apply in public elections. However, civil servants must not be allowed to abuse those powers delegated to them for the purpose of servicing all citizens. Therefore, it is necessary to clearly stipulate that the use of official positions is illegal.

3. Media

>> The following questions have to be considered. Should a system for free newspaper advertising be adopted? If so, what arrangements should the system include?

>> Television has an extremely strong impact on elections because, compared with the print media, it provides much higher levels of exposure and utilization. However, the most suitable medium differs between elections and national referendums. For the latter, print media are very important because voters can read and re-read the materials.

>> Television advertising should be banned during a certain period of time preceding the voting day. A two-week period would be appropriate.


OZAWA Ryuichi

1. Significance of the Procedural Law for Constitutional Amendments

>> The procedural law for constitutional amendments would be a supplementary law to the Constitution. In light of the basic principles of the Constitution, this law should be enacted to provide maximum guarantee for the people's right to engage in free and democratic expressions of their views.

>> Considering the characteristics of the procedural law for constitutional amendments, it would be sufficient to enact the law at any time prior to the presentation of a concrete schedule for constitutional amendment. Therefore, it is desirable that this legislation be discussed with due caution.

2. Features of the National Referendum for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan

>> Constitutional amendments are to be initiated by the Diet, and the role of the people is limited to judging whether a proposed amendment should be ratified or not.

>> Constitutional amendment is an act that defines constitutional norms. The functions of a national referendum for constitutional amendment are: (a) to accept or reject a norm that has been submitted, which is unrelated to the selection of a specific political party; and, (b) to accept or reject a general and abstract amendment of the Constitution, which differs from local referendums in which the people vote to accept or reject a specific policy or measure.

3. Salient points of the bills

[1] Minimum voter turnout requirement

>> A minimum voter turnout requirement should be adopted to guarantee that the true will of the sovereign people is expressed concerning a constitutional amendment that has been initiated by the Diet.

[2] Ban on participation of civil servants and educators in national referendum campaigns in their official capacities

>> The bill submitted by the ruling parties contains a ban on the participation of civil servants and educators in national referendum campaigns in their official capacities. This provision assumes that partisan positions will be given priority in constitutional amendments, and is both unnecessary and inappropriate.Consideration should also be given to the suppressive impact that such a provision would have.

[3] Period between initiation and voting

>> A proposed constitutional amendment may include a broad range of interpretations. In such cases, experts should be given a chance to consider past constitutional interpretations and the possible impact of the proposed amendment. Therefore, the 60 to 180 day publicity period stipulated in the two bills is too short.

[4] Assessment of the two bills

>> The constitutionality of the ruling parties bill is questionable with regard to points [1] – [3] above, and the constitutionality of the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan is questionable with regard to points [1] and [3] above. Therefore, the bills must be carefully and radically examined, allowing for the possibility of their rejection.

4. Future deliberations

>> If a revised bill is submitted, it is the responsibility of the Diet as the highest organ of state power to organize public hearings and to start anew the entire process of deliberation.


EBASHI Takashi

1. Diet deliberations on proposed constitutional amendments

>> It would be desirable for the Diet to abide by the following procedures. First, the Joint Examination Committee of the two Houses would formalize the final draft of a proposed constitutional amendment, which then would be taken back to each House. Next, plenary sessions of each House would be convened at the same time on the same day to deliberate upon and vote on the draft amendment. An amendment would be initiated upon confirmation that the draft amendment has been accepted in both Houses by a two-thirds majority.

>> In the enactment process of the Constitution of Japan, notwithstanding the fact that the structure of the Diet was altered from a unicameral to a bicameral structure, no change was made in the requirement of a two-thirds supermajority for constitutional amendment. For this reason, the provisions of Article 96 came to stipulate procedures of unprecedented severity. The establishment of a Joint Examination Committee represents a very wise solution to this impasse.

2. Methods for presenting the issues in a constitutional amendment to the people

>> An independent and preliminary national referendum should be held to register the public will on the following matters. Should the process of constitutional amendment be started? What part of the Constitution should be amended? What direction should such amendments take?

>> The ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan are studying an arrangement that would allow petitions adopted by the Commission on the Constitution to be included in the final draft of constitutional amendments. I believe this to be appropriate.

3. National referendum system

>> In addition to national referendums for constitutional amendment, the adoption of national referendums on the following matters should be considered: (a) ratification of treaties for cession of territories; and, (b) enactment of laws concerning imperial succession and a basic law on peace.

4. Judgment on ratification and treatment of blank ballots in national referendums

>> Whenever an amendment is proposed, ratification of the entire section of the Constitution containing the proposed amendment should be sought. This should be the basic principle. If amendments are separately drafted to cover a series of related issues, and if these amendments consist of enlargements of the existing text, this would result in series of accretions affecting the texts of related provisions. In this case, there would be no significant difference between voting on a unified package of issues and voting separately on individual issues.

>> The purpose of national referendums is to seek approval for proposed constitutional amendments. Therefore, blank ballots should be treated as void as in the case of other instances of voting for approval or ratification that are stipulated in the Constitution. It would be inappropriate to count blank ballots as either votes in favor or opposed to an amendment.

>> Problems that may arise by treating blank ballots as void should be resolved through the adoption of a minimum voter turnout requirement.

5. Conclusions

>> How can the Constitution of Japan be amended to create a happier Constitution that is supported by an even larger portion of the public? To achieve such a goal, it is necessary to fully examine amendment methodologies that are firmly founded on commonsense procedures and commonsense rules.


Main points of questions put to speakers (morning session)

FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party)

(To Mr. ASANO)

>> Regarding the participation of civil servants and educators in national referendum campaigns in their official capacities, in the ruling parties bill, an attempt was made to include explicit provisions banning the use of official positions. But as a result of the ensuing discussions and the argument that campaigning in public elections and national referendums are different, we are considering a revision that will exclude punitive legal action but will instead seek to implement the ban through disciplinary action. What are your views on this matter?

>> The scope of political activities banned under the National Public Service Law is different from that under the Local Public Service Law. For this reason, in national referendum campaigning we are considering a revision to exempt civil servants from the provisions of these laws banning political activities. What are your views on this matter?

>> We are considering whether or not to provide for free newspaper advertising. Considering the fact that print media allow voters to read and re-read the same material, do you think it is better to provide for free newspaper advertising?

(To Prof. OZAWA)

>> You stated it would be sufficient to enact the procedural law on constitutional amendments at any time before a specific constitutional amendment is proposed. But when the debate for constitutional amendment becomes heated, amendment procedures may be distorted to the advantage of one of the sides. For this reason, don't you think that it would be better to enact the procedural law in advance?

(To Prof. EBASHI)

>> What are your views on the following matters: (a) establishment of a Joint Examination Committee; (b) establishment of arrangements that would allow the public's views to be heard through the adoption of petitions; and, (c) revision of the bill to provide for preliminary national referendums on constitutional issues.


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

(To all speakers)

>> I believe the national referendum law for constitutional amendment must be impartial and fair. Do you feel that the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan satisfies this requirement?

>> The Democratic Party of Japan believes that a general national referendum system should be enacted together with the national referendum system for constitutional amendment. What are your views on this matter?

>> What are your views on including explicit provisions stipulating that the Commission on the Constitution is to refrain from deliberating upon constitutional amendments for a three-year period, during which time it dedicates itself to researching the Constitution?

(To Mr. ASANO)

>> You stated that thorough preparations would have to be made if the voting age in national referendums differs from the voting age in public elections. In addition to the provisions contained in the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan, what other matters need to be stipulated?


AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito)

(To all speakers)

>> I believe that the Constitution can be reviewed from all angles, including the question of whether or not to amend it in the first place, only after the Commission on the Constitution has been established. What are your views on this matter?

(To Prof. EBASHI)

>> Some argue that a preliminary national referendum on constitutional amendment is problematic because an amendment under consideration could be rejected at the start of discussions. Please comment on what would constitute a desirable system for preliminary national referendums on constitutional amendment, and please describe some successful cases in foreign countries.

>> You have referred to the process of constitutional amendment through enlargement. How does this differ from the process of "adding to the Constitution" advocated by New Komeito?

>> Considering the need for consistency between the existing wording of the Constitution and wording that is added through amendment, I believe there is a difference between adding new wording while making no changes in the existing wording, and making changes in the existing wording while adding new wording. What are your views on this matter?


KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)

(Comment)

>> I would like to report to the directors and members of this Special Committee that my office has received more than 1,200 letters, faxes and other messages from the public asking for thorough and cautious deliberations on legislation for constitutional amendment procedures.

(To Prof. OZAWA)

>> How do you view the enactment of a national referendum law in light of actual developments related to constitutional amendment?

>> The presenters of the bills have opposed a minimum voter turnout requirement for the following reasons: (a) the requirement may induce boycott movements; (b) some constitutional issues may not attract enough public interest to generate high voter turnouts; and, (c) the addition of requirements not contained in Article 96 is unconstitutional. I believe none of these arguments are valid. What are your views on this matter?

(To Mr. ASANO)

>> Regarding the ban on the participation of civil servants and educators in national referendum campaigns in their official capacities, the presenters of the bills have indicated that punitive legal measures will be eliminated. Would such a revision delineate the scope of what constitutes "use of official position?"

(To Prof. OZAWA)

>> Even if the abovementioned revision were to be made, I believe this would not alleviate the suppressive impact on civil servants and educators. What are your views on this matter?

>> The Diet is responsible for initiating constitutional amendments. However, once initiated, primary responsibility shifts to the people. This is the intent of Article 96. In light of this fact, what is your position on using political parties as the basis for allocating membership in the Public Relations Council and allocating free broadcast advertising?


TSUJIMOTO Kiyomi (Social Democratic Party)

(Comment)

>> In the course of our overseas research, comments were received emphasizing the importance of parliamentary consensus and public consensus in constitutional amendment. Our parliamentary consensus is in crisis due to the convening of this Special Committee by the chairman's authority and due to the statements made by Prime Minister Abe.

(To Prof. EBASHI and Prof. OZAWA)

>> Among the procedures for constitutional amendment, there is a clear difference in the procedures culminating in the initiation of an amendment, and the post-initiation procedures culminating in a national referendum. I believe separate laws should be enacted for each of these two segments. What are your views on the inclusion of these two procedural segments under one law?

(To all speakers)

>> Regarding the ban on paid broadcast advertising, in light of the expected impact of differences in financial resources, one option would be to consider a ban extending over the entire period following the initiation of a constitutional amendment. What are your views on this matter?

(To Prof. EBASHI)

>> During our overseas research, the reaction in various countries to the proposed ban on the participation of civil servants and educators in national referendum campaigns in their official capacities was that such restrictions were unnecessary. Unlike in public elections where individuals are elected, I believe that national referendum campaigns should be conducted according to the principles of equality and freedom. What are your views on this matter?


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

(To Prof. OZAWA and Prof. EBASHI)

>> How long should the period be between the Diet's initiation of a constitutional amendment and voting?

>> How much time is needed for an overwhelming majority of the people to gain an adequate understanding of the current Constitution and the parts that are to be amended?

(To Mr. ASANO)

>> I believe that both television and the Internet will have a very large influence in a national referendum. Should restrictions be placed on campaign activities using the Internet?

(To all speakers)

>> What are your views on media restrictions designed to prevent erroneous statements by influential persons appearing on television?

>> One of the differences between the two bills concerns the scope of national referendums. The bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan provides for general national referendums. What are your views on this matter?

>> It was argued that haste should not be made in enacting procedural laws for constitutional amendment. Do you believe the Diet has conducted sufficient deliberations and that the public has gained a sufficient understanding of the matter?


Main points of statements made by speakers (afternoon session)

HONDA Masatoshi

1. Best efforts for consensus building and preventing a negative image

>> I favor enacting a national referendum law, but I hope that consensus building will continue through the last stage. If the law is enacted by majority vote, a negative image will be generated in the public mind. This may seriously hamper the constitutional amendment process in the future.

2. Leadership of the Diet throughout the process

>> Both bills were presented by Diet members, and the discussions thus far have been led by the Diet. I hope the deliberations will continue firmly under the leadership of the legislative branch without being influenced by the Cabinet.

3. Clarifying the status of the Commission on the Constitution

>> The Commission on the Constitution would be a standing organ that is neither a standing committee nor a special committee. Creating such an organ that does not fit into the existing framework signifies a major revision of the Diet Law. To clarify the status of the Commission on the Constitution, the matter should be carefully discussed in the Council on the Parliamentary System and other organs.

4. Clarifying the status of the Joint Examination Committee

>> Establishing a Joint Examination Committee and empowering it to issue recommendations to both Houses can be criticized as constituting an irregularity in the principle of bicameralism. Also, there is some suspicion that the Joint Examination Committee is to function as a constitution drafting council. To clarify the status of the Joint Examination Committee, the matter should be carefully discussed in the Council on the Parliamentary System and other organs.

5. Quorum in the Commission and Committee

>> The Commission on the Constitution and the Joint Examination Committee will play very important roles in the constitutional amendment process. In light of this, quorum should be defined as the attendance of no less than one half, and preferably two thirds, of all members.

6. Restrictions based on legislative assembly term

>> It is laudable that deliberations concerning proposed constitutional amendments will be exempted from the principle of not carrying matters over to the next session. However, deliberations should not be carried over from the previous legislative session when a general election or a regular election of the House of Councillors has been held.

7. Other matters (expanding the scope of national referendums to matters of state)

>> Allowing national referendums on important matters of state poses fundamental questions concerning parliamentary democracy. Discussions of a general national referendum system should be conducted separately from discussions of a national referendum system for constitutional amendment.


YAMAHANA Ikuo

1. Introduction

>> It will be difficult for the public to gain a full and accurate understanding of constitutional amendment procedures. But the public certainly needs to be aware of the fact that amendments are initiated by the Diet and must be ratified in national referendums with majority approval.

>> These open hearings started on the same day that prefectural governor elections were announced. From the perspective of the interest of the public, this timing was inappropriate.

2. General national referendums on important matters of state

[1] "Violation" of Article 41 of the Constitution

>> Some have opposed general national referendums on the grounds that the results would be effectively binding. Thought should be given to the essential difference between "legally binding" and "effectively binding."

[2] Violation of the principles of representative democracy

>> I do not take a positive stance on submitting all matters to national referendums. However, it should be emphasized that while the Constitution enunciates the principle of representative democracy, it also assigns a complementary role to direct democracy.

>> Systems of direct democracy have been rejected in Germany, but can be affirmed in Japan as complementing the institutions of indirect democracy. Voters participating in elections are not giving their representatives a carte blanche on all matters of policy, and they do want to participate directly in making important decisions.

[3] Degree of "effectively binding"

>> If general national referendums are instituted, the outcome of voting on such issues as accession of a female empress may turn out to be at variance with public opinion. Suppose approval for an initiative exceeds disapproval by a very slim margin. In this case, would it really be acceptable to adopt the outcome?

>> Precisely because the effectiveness of general national referendums is debatable, how to proceed can be studied based on the outcome. The extent to which the outcome is binding should be discussed with respect to specific cases.

[4] Defining important matters of state

>> Instead of defining a priori categories of what constitutes important matters of state, other procedures should be designed, such as requiring that all political parties agree on what should be submitted to a general national referendum. Even if the outcome of the referendum is to be respected, some matters may require a simple majority, while other matters may require a 70 percent or 80 percent majority to be adopted.

[5] Negative views on general national referendums

>> While some have argued that general national referendums are unacceptable, I believe no constitutional norms exist that would prohibit them. Another negative view is that they should be separated from the process of constitutional amendment. I do not understand why general national referendums and national referendums for constitutional amendment should not be discussed together.


TAKADA Ken

1. Introduction

>> I sat in on almost all of the discussions of the Research Commission on the Constitution. I regret that no research was conducted on to what extent the Constitution of Japan has been materialized.

2. Conduct of the Special Committee for Research on the Constitution of Japan

>> The vote taken on March 15 to hold open hearings was irregular. Why should matters related to the Constitution be rushed like this?

3. Statement of Prime Minister Abe

>> It is unacceptable to begin deliberating on the procedural law for constitutional amendments without even stopping to criticize the statements of Prime Minister Abe, such as that the "Constitution will be amended during my term." Such statements should be rigorously checked from the perspective of the separation of powers.

>> The Prime Minister's statements contradict the description of "neutral procedural law" given by the presenters of the bills. Today, we no longer have the calm environment needed to discuss the procedural law for constitutional amendments.

4. Problems contained in the bills

>> Further discussion is needed concerning the introduction of a general national referendum system, the minimum voting age, and the definition of majority. The public needs easy-to-understand explanations concerning those aspects of the bills on which the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan have come to an agreement. However, the differences between the two bills are not the only problem. This Special Committee has failed to sufficiently discuss the points that the two bills have in common.

>> Regarding voting on a unified package of issues, we have at least been told that environmental rights will not be lumped together with Article 9 to be placed in the same package of amendments. But the following problem remains. In amending Article 9, would it be permissible to lump together the recognition of self-defense forces and recognition of the right to dispatch them overseas?

>> Regarding spot commercials, I have advocated that such advertising should be banned throughout the entire period of a national referendum campaign. Given the differences in views that currently exist among various organizations, there is no need to rush to a conclusion on this matter.

>> The establishment of a Commission on the Constitution exceeds the limits of the procedural law and may encourage a tendency in the Diet to disregard the obligation to respect and uphold the Constitution.

>> A national referendum campaign period of 60 to 180 days is far too short. A longer period is needed for careful consideration.

5. Conclusions

>> There are reports that the bills will be voted on after the open hearings have been concluded, and that the law will be enacted during the current Diet session. What reason is there to make such haste on matters related to the Constitution? I request that more thorough discussions be conducted.


Main points of questions put to speakers (morning session)

AICHI Kazuo (Liberal Democratic Party)

(To all speakers)

>> What are your views on the need to enact a national referendum law for constitutional amendment?

(To Mr. TAKADA)

>> By when will it be necessary to enact a national referendum law for constitutional amendment?

(To Prof. HONDA and Mr. YAMAHANA)

>> Regarding the scope of national referendums, it cannot be denied that the outcome of general national referendums will be effectively binding, which I believe poses fundamental questions regarding parliamentary democracy. What are your views on this matter?

(To Mr. YAMAHANA)

>> What are your views on separating general national referendums from national referendums for constitutional amendment and discussing the former in the context of a separate law?

(To Prof. HONDA and Mr. YAMAHANA)

>> Regarding the ban on the participation of civil servants and educators in national referendum campaigns in their official capacities, I believe national referendum campaigns will not be fair without such restrictions. What are your views on this matter?

>> Regarding restrictions on the media, I believe a certain cooling off period from media influence is needed immediately before voting. What are your views on this matter?

>> Prof. EBASHI stated that the Joint Examination Committee of both Houses should be utilized in initiating constitutional amendments. What are your views on this matter?

(Comment)

>> We are not thinking of enacting a national referendum law for constitutional amendment solely with the support of the ruling parties, and we are continuing to work toward a consensus. As this is a democracy, we cannot deny that the legislation may ultimately be enacted by majority vote. But even in that case, we ask that boycott of deliberations and abstention from voting be avoided.


NAKAGAWA Masaharu (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

(To all speakers)

>> Compared to other committees, this Special Committee has been managed with the intent of arriving at a consensus. However, we recently experienced some confusion regarding the scheduling of open hearings. Also, the conduct of this Special Committee has been politicized by the statements of Prime Minister Abe. What are your views on these matters?

(To Prof. HONDA and Mr. YAMAHANA)

>> Regarding the general national referendum system contained in the bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan, the Diet is supposed to decide on such questions as what issues are to be submitted to a general national referendum, and whether or not its outcome should be adopted. As such, this system does not violate the principles of parliamentary democracy. What are your views on introducing a general national referendum system?

(To all speakers)

>> The provisions of Article 96 concerning constitutional amendment require the Diet to reach a certain decision in the form of an initiative. However, before reaching that conclusion, would it not be better to hold a preliminary national referendum on constitutional amendment for the purpose of clarifying the issues on hand?


OGUCHI Yoshinori (New Komeito)

(To all speakers)

>> What would have been the most appropriate timing for enacting a national referendum law?

(To Prof. HONDA and Mr. YAMAHANA)

>> The proposed national referendum law provides for the establishment of a Commission on the Constitution, which will require the partial revision of the Diet Law. This has been approved by the Rules and Administration Committee, and we have followed formal procedures on this matter. There has been some argument concerning the powers and authority of the Commission on the Constitution. What are your views on the powers of constitutional review and investigation of basic legislation?

(To Mr. YAMAHANA)

>> The outcome of a general national referendum would be effectively binding, and should therefore be thoroughly examined from a political perspective. However, I believe preliminary national referendums concerning constitutional issues can be conducted. What are your views on this matter?

>> Regarding the treatment of the outcome of general national referendums, you stated that some matters would require a majority of 70 percent or 80 percent, while some other matters would not. Can legal treatment of the outcome differ according to the level of support?


KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)

(To Prof. HONDA and Mr. YAMAHANA)

>> I believe the statements made by Prime Minister Abe have distorted the intent of the bills submitted, which was to enact an impartial and fair procedural law. What are your views on such treatment of bills?

(To Mr. TAKADA)

>> I don't believe there will be any boycott movements. To protect the Constitution, it would be more rational to cast votes in opposition to an amendment. What are your views on this matter from the perspective of a citizens' movement?

>> It is unrealistic to think that civic groups will use television ads that require huge amounts of money. I believe the allocation of free advertising solely to political parties contradicts the principles of impartiality and fairness. What are your views on this matter?

>> Regarding the allocation of free advertising, the current bills contain the following problems. The Public Relations Council is empowered to determine the allocation of free advertising. Furthermore, in addition to advertising for and against an amendment, provisions are made for public information advertising concerning the proposed amendment itself. I believe that even if revisions are made, such a system will fail to be impartial and fair. What are your views on this matter?

>> You have been involved in movements to prevent the amendment of Article 9. From this standpoint, what thoughts do you have as we approach the 60th anniversary of the coming into force of the Constitution?


TSUJIMOTO Kiyomi (Social Democratic Party)

(Comment)

>> Regardless of their positions on constitutional amendment, the speakers today have expressed concern for the recent conduct of this Special Committee. These comments must be taken very seriously.

(To all speakers)

>> What is your assessment of the local referendums that have been conducted in various parts of the country, and what problems do you see in these local referendums?

>> I believe a minimum voter turnout requirement must be adopted in order to fully legitimize the outcome of national referendums and constitutional amendments that have been ratified. What are your views on this matter? If such a requirement were to be adopted, what would be an appropriate cutoff level?

(To Mr. TAKADA)

>> What are your views concerning the ban on the participation of civil servants and educators in national referendum campaigns in their official capacities?


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

(To Prof. HONDA and Mr. YAMAHANA)

>> You have stated that a constitutional amendment should be submitted under the authority of the Diet. How should the authority of the Diet be expressed in the enactment of a procedural law?

(To Prof. HONDA)

>> You have stated that the authority of the Commission on the Constitution is unclear. Please describe how it should be made clear.

(To Mr. TAKADA)

>> I understand that you have doubts concerning the functions of the Commission on the Constitution. How can these doubts be resolved?

(To all speakers)

>> It was argued that the duration of the national referendum campaign is too short. In your opinion, how much time is needed between the initiation by the Diet and voting?

(To Prof. HONDA and Mr. TAKADA)

>> The Joint Examination Committee may effectively operate as a unicameral system. Would this not undermine the functions of bicameralism?

(To all speakers)

>> Television and other media can be expected to be used effectively in national referendums. What sort of restrictions should be adopted for such cases where a news anchor states his or her support or opposition to an amendment?