Fifth Meeting

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Meeting Agenda

1.Resignation of directors and appointment of replacement directors

OKAMOTO Mitsunori was appointed director from among the Committee members, upon the resignation of SONODA Yasuhiro as director; both are members of the Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents.

HIRAOKA Hideo was appointed director from among the Committee members, upon the resignation of EDANO Yukio as director; both are members of the Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents.


2.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)

[1] Regarding the revised 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) submitted by Mr. EDANO Yukio and two others, Mr. SONODA Yasuhiro, a presenter of the revisions, explained the reasons for the submission of the revised bill. (Click here) 

[2] Regarding the two abovementioned bills, the revised bill presented by Mr. YASUOKA Okiharu and three others, and the revised bill presented by Mr. EDANO Yukio and two others, questions were put to the following presenters of the two bills and the two revised bills: Mr. EDANO Yukio (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents), Mr. FUNADA Hajime (Liberal Democratic Party), Mr. HANASHI Yasuhiro (Liberal Democratic Party), Mr. AKAMATSU Masao (New Komeito), and Mr. YASUOKA Okiharu (Liberal Democratic Party).


Members who put questions to the speakers:

[3] Upon completion of questions, the views of the Cabinet concerning the two abovementioned bills were expressed in accordance with the provisions of Article 57-III of the Diet Law. Responding to this inquiry, Minister SUGA Yoshihide of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications stated: "The government will respect the judgment of the Diet and will act accordingly."

[4] Votes were taken with the following results. First, the revised bill presented by Mr. EDANO Yukio and two others was rejected with minority support. Second, the revised bill presented by Mr. YASUOKA Okiharu and three others was accepted with majority support. The decision was made to merge the two abovementioned bills into a single bill and to adopt this as a revised bill.


Explanation of the reasons for the submission of the revised bill by Mr. SONODA Yasuhiro (Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents)

On behalf of the presenters of the revision to the "Bill for Law Concerning Initiation Procedures and National Referendums for Amendment of the Constitution of Japan and Other Important Matters of State" submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents, I would like to take this opportunity to explain the reasons for submission of the revisions and the outline of the revisions.

Since the inception of this Special Committee, we have been engaged in discussions for about a year and a half. Throughout these discussions, the Democratic Party of Japan and Club of Independents have always advocated that national referendum legislation must be developed completely apart from the question of whether or not to amend the Constitution, and as an objective and impartial procedural law based on a broad consensus. We believe the positions that we were advocating were finally beginning to gain widespread acceptance. However, the nature of our discussions underwent a dramatic change in January of this year when Prime Minister ABE stated, "I hope to amend the Constitution during my term in office." Prime Minister ABE's statement has had a dire effect on discussions concerning national referendum legislations as well as discussions concerning the Constitution of Japan. It is my impression that we have been forced to retreat 15 years in terms of political debate, and 150 years in terms of political thought.

In explaining the reasons for the submission of the revised bill of the ruling parties, Mr. YASUOKA, the senior director of the ruling parties stated, "The differences between the bills submitted by the ruling parties and the Democratic Party of Japan have been almost totally eliminated." However, regarding a national referendum system for important matters of state, the revised bill submitted by the ruling parties takes a very passive stance and goes no further than to state that, "the significance and necessity of such a system shall be examined." Regarding the lowering of the minimum voting age to 18, the revised bill submitted by the ruling parties allows for the possibility of indefinitely postponing the implementation of this matter. Furthermore, the revised bill submitted by the ruling parties does not exempt civil servants participating in national referendum campaign activities from the prohibitions against engagement in political activities contained in the National Public Service Law and the Local Public Service Law. On this issue, the revised bill goes no further than to provide for considering the matter in its supplementary provisions. However, it is unclear what the intent of these supplementary provisions is and what in fact is going to be considered.

In no way can it be said that the revised bill submitted by the ruling parties reflects the discussions undertaken by this Special Committee. We cannot help but conclude that some very stark differences exist between what the Democratic Party of Japan has in mind and what is contained in the revised bill submitted by the ruling parties. Taking into consideration the question and answer sessions of this Special Committee and the statements made by informants appearing before it and speakers in the open hearings, the Democratic Party of Japan has engaged in earnest and exhaustive discussions, and decided to present its own revised bill. As we believe the revised bill of the Democratic Party of Japan represents the most rational proposal tendered at this time, we are convinced that it will be adopted with majority support.

I would now like to outline the main features of the revised bill.

The first matter concerns the "scope of national referendums." In addition to constitutional amendment, we are proposing that the following matters be referred to the people in national referendums: important matters of state that may become the subject of constitutional amendment; matters related to the organs of government; matters related to bio-ethics; and, other matters suited to national referendums to be designated under separate laws. Furthermore, the supplementary provisions contain the following stipulation. "Until such time as this law comes into force, national referendums on important matters of state shall be duly examined from the perspective of maintaining consistency with the principle of indirect democracy enunciated in the Constitution of Japan and other perspectives, and necessary legislative measures shall be taken."

The second matter concerns "eligible voters."

Throughout the world, there are many countries in which 18 is the age of majority, and citizens aged 18 and over are given the right to vote. For this reason, in this revised bill, the minimum voting age is set at 18. Furthermore, the supplementary provisions contain the following stipulation. "Until such time as this law comes into force (after three years), the Public Offices Election Law, the Civil Code and other related laws shall be duly examined, and necessary legislative measures shall be taken."

The third matter concerns "the method of indicating approval or disapproval on the ballot, and the definition of 'majority.'"

Regarding this matter, due importance must be given to properly registering the will of the voter. In order to minimize the number of invalid ballots, following further consideration, a change was made in this revised bill whereby voters will be asked to simply circle either the word "approve" or "disapprove," which will appear printed on the ballot. An initiative shall be deemed ratified by the people when the number of approval ballots exceeds one-half of the total number of ballots cast in approval and disapproval.

The fourth matter concerns the "scope of specified public service personnel prohibited from participating in national referendum campaign activities." As was the case in the original bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan, the prohibition applies solely to the employees, and others concerned in, the Election Management Councils, etc.

The discussions of this Special Committee confirmed our belief that national referendums for constitutional amendment present the sovereign people with the very important and valuable opportunity of directly expressing their views on matters of state, and that judges, public prosecutors and other civil servants should be guaranteed the same right.

The fifth matter concerns "restrictions on the participation of civil servants and educators in national referendum campaign activities in their official positions." The revised bill contains such restrictions and clarifies the conditions for their application. However, no penalties are provided for violation.

Moreover, the revised bill exempts civil servants from the application of the provisions of the National Public Service Law and the Local Public Service Law and other laws restricting the political activities of civil servants. This exemption applies to participation in national referendum campaign activities and the expression of views and opinions concerning constitutional amendment and related necessary actions during the period between the initiation of a constitutional amendment and the voting day in the pertinent national referendum.

The sixth matter, "organized bribery of large numbers of people" is newly provided for in the revised bill by defining it as a crime applicable only to the worst forms of violation as designated by the following requirements. First, chargeable "acts of solicitation" are limited to explicit acts. Second, the scope of "provision of goods and other benefits sufficient to influence voting behavior" is restricted to "instances that go beyond normal practices in which these are used as a means of conveying one's views to large numbers of people."

The seventh matter concerns "publicity and public information concerning national referendums." First of all, the bill stipulates that the National Referendum Official Gazette shall present "the proposed constitutional amendment and its summarization, a comparative table of the present and proposed provisions of the Constitution, and other easy-to-understand explanations of materials that can serve as reference."

Provisions concerning the holding of explanatory meetings and provisions related to the allocation of free newspaper advertising space have been deleted from this revised bill.

Regarding the allocation of free advertising on television and other media, the bill stipulates that views expressed in opposition and in support of a proposed constitutional amendment must be given "fair and equal" treatment. The bill allows for the allocation of free advertising to groups and organizations designated by political parties for airing of their views in opposition to or in support of proposed constitutional amendments.

The eighth matter concerns "paid radio and television advertising." The bill stipulates the prohibition of such advertising during the entire period between the initiation of a constitutional amendment and the voting day. Furthermore, the bill stipulates that broadcasters must take into consideration the intent of the provisions of the Broadcast Law when airing programs related to national referendums.

Finally, the bill contains the following provisions concerning the "date of which this law shall come into force, and the powers of examination of the Commission on the Constitution." The date of coming into force is set at three years from the date of the promulgation of the law. Furthermore, the bill explicitly stipulates that the Commission on the Constitution shall engage solely in "research" during this three-year period.

Up to last week, the Special Committee has held two central open hearings and two local open hearings. The end of these open hearings should not be interpreted to mean that the stage is now set for a vote. We should give ear with due humility to the many views that were expressed in these open hearings, and we should thoroughly discuss the differences that remain between the revised bill of the ruling parties and the revised bill of the Democratic Party of Japan in order to arrive at the broadest possible consensus. I end my presentation of the reasons for the submission of this revised bill with the plea to all political parties and all members of this Special Committee to continue in our efforts for the attainment of this goal.


Main points of questions put to the presenters

SHIBAYAMA Masahiko (Liberal Democratic Party)

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

>> The revised bill of the Democratic Party of Japan sets the minimum voting age at 18 and contains supplementary provisions for the review of related laws. Please explain the details and the intent of these provisions. The presenter of the revised bill of the Democratic Party of Japan criticized the revised bill of the ruling parties on the grounds that, under its provisions, the lowering of the minimum voting age to 18 can be indefinitely postponed. I would like to ask the presenters of the ruling parties' revised bill to comment on this matter.

>> In the revised bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan, civil servants participating in national referendum campaign activities are exempted from the provisions of the National Public Service Law and Local Public Service Law concerning the political activities of civil servants. Please explain the details and the intent of this provision. The presenter of the revised bill of the Democratic Party of Japan criticized the revised bill of the ruling parties on the grounds that the intent of the provision to consider these matters remains ambiguous in the ruling parties' bill. I would like to ask both sides to comment on this issue.

>> I would like to ask why provisions concerning the allocation of free newspaper advertising were deleted from the revised bill of the Democratic Party of Japan. I would also like to ask the presenters of the ruling parties' revised bill to express their views concerning the allocation of free newspaper advertising.

>> I would like to ask why, in the revised bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan, paid radio and television advertising is prohibited throughout the entire period between the initiation of a constitutional amendment and the voting day. I would also like to ask why the duration of the prohibition has been extended from one week to two weeks in the revised bill submitted by the ruling parties.

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

>> Are you saying that a proposed constitutional amendment can be publicized without paid advertising, and that adequate publicity can be given through public discussion and news programs?

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

>> What is the intent of the revised bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan in limiting the scope of general national referendums? I would like to know what the presenters of the revised bill of the ruling parties have to say about this.

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

>> There are no essential differences between the two bills, and I believe that both bills at least are founded on the same basic understanding. What are your views on this matter?


ISHII Keiichi (New Komeito)

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

>> It has been argued that although general national referendums covering a broad range of issues would be advisory in character, in reality they could have a binding effect on the legislative process, and that for this reason the present Constitution would have to be amended to allow for general national referendums. What are your views on this matter?

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

>> In delineating the scope of general national referendums, why does the revised bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan specifically refer to matters related to the organs of government and to bio-ethics? What do you have in mind when you refer to "other matters suited to national referendums to be designated under separate laws?"

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

>> Do you feel the need for a general national referendum concerning issues of constitutional amendment?

>> The supplementary provisions of the revised bill submitted by the ruling parties state that necessary legislative measures will be taken following examination of the age-related provisions contained in the Public Offices Election Law, the Civil Code and other laws. Will there be enough time to do this during the three-year period preceding effectuation of the law? Does the statement "necessary legislative measures will be taken" refer to the promulgation or to the effectuation of legislation?

>> The supplementary provisions of the revised bill submitted by the ruling parties state that the minimum voting age in national referendums will be 20, until such time as persons between the ages of 18 and 20 are permitted to participate in national elections and other activities. What does the "other activities" in "national elections and other activities" refer to? Does this imply that the minimum voting age will be lowered to 18 only when the conditions implied in "other activities" are fully met?

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

>> Why have you adopted the assumption that it does not matter if the voting age in national referendums differs from the voting age in public elections and the age of majority under the Civil Code? Won't this assumption have the effect of obstructing the lowering of the voting age in public elections?

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

>> The allocation of free newspaper advertising has been deleted from the revised bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan. The allocation of free advertising will not create disparities based on available financial resources, and positions both for and against a proposed constitutional amendment will be given equal treatment. For these reasons, I believe the allocation of free newspaper advertising is necessary for presenting the people with thorough publicity and information. What are your views on this matter?

>> Spot commercials have been criticized as a means of "buying constitutional amendments with money." On the other hand, restricting them would be criticized as suppressing the freedom of expression. How did you make a judgment on how to balance these two positions?

>> The presenters of both bills have rejected the inclusion of a minimum voter turnout requirement on two separate grounds: that such a requirement would instigate boycotts, and that this would add to the conditions contained in Article 96. However, some have argued that exclusion of a minimum voter turnout requirement constitutes the most serious flaw of the bills. I would like to receive more detailed explanations concerning this matter.


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

(Comment)

>> I protest the manner in which this Special Committee has been managed, such as the convocation of meetings by exercise of official powers.

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

>> The scope of national referendums as stipulated in the revised bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan is consistent with the discussions of this Special Committee. Why then do the ruling parties refuse to accept this? Doesn't this refusal contradict the initial understanding that the law would be enacted based on a broad consensus?

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

>> What do you think of the position taken by the ruling parties in rejecting the revised bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan?

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

>> Regarding the lowering of the minimum voting age in national referendums, given that the ruling parties have acknowledged the responsibility to examine and to modify existing laws, what rational reasons exist for adopting interim measures whereby the minimum voting age remains at 20 until such time as the minimum voting age in public elections is lowered to 18?

>> You have already admitted that national referendums and national elections are different and unrelated in nature. Then, what meaning is there in your statement that failure to adopt such interim measures could prevent the taking of appropriate actions in relation to the Public Services Election Law?

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

>> While stating that they do not take a negative stance on the modification of related laws, the ruling parties are strongly advocating the inclusion of interim measures in the national referendum law and have rejected the revised bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan. What are your views on this position taken by the ruling parties?

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

>> Such interim measures should not be included in the main body of the national referendum law. Instead, I believe the matter should be stipulated in the supplementary provisions of related laws. I would like to know why you did not opt for this approach.

>> Regarding the participation of civil servants and educators in national referendum campaign activities, what reasons do you have for rejecting the provisions contained in the revised bill submitted by the Democratic Party of Japan for exempting civil servants from the application of the provisions concerning the political activities of civil servants contained in the National Public Service Law and the Local Public Service Law?

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

>> The ruling parties have stated that there are no significant differences in terms of content between the positions taken in the revised bills submitted by the ruling parties and by the Democratic Party of Japan. Moreover, they have argued that the differences in wording should not be over-emphasized. What are your views on this stance of the ruling parties?

(Comment)

>> We must endeavor to reach a broad consensus by continuing to deepen our discussions concerning the proposed national referendum bills. This will prove beneficial to future discussions of the Constitution. To force a vote today would ruin all the efforts that we have made in the past and will sow the seeds of trouble for the future.


KASAI Akira (Japanese Communist Party)

(Comment)

>> I strongly protest any effort to force a vote. Any such action is contrary to the voice of the people demanding the continuation of thorough deliberation of the bills.

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

>> Many of the speakers appearing in the open hearing of April 5 called for the continuation of cautious deliberations. Is there no need for further open hearings?

>> A public opinion poll conducted by NHK indicates that less than 10 percent of the people favor enactment of the bill during the current session of the Diet. Bar associations, local assemblies and others have voiced opposition to the bill and have demanded thorough deliberation. I believe we must respond to these voices and continue our discussions. What are your views on this matter?

>> More than half of the speakers appearing before this Special Committee in the central and local open hearings expressed support for the adoption of minimum voter turnout requirements. We will not be able to gain the people's understanding if we fail to listen to what the public is saying and if we adopt a system that will allow the Constitution to be amended with the support of a very small number of voters. What are your views on this matter?

>> The revised bill submitted by the ruling parties does not exempt civil servants from the application of the provisions of the National Public Service Law and the Local Public Service Law concerning the political activities of civil servants. I believe it is highly problematic that civil servants should be prevented from participating in national referendum campaign activities as private individuals. What are your views on this matter?

>> Regarding the ban on the participation of civil servants and educators in national referendum campaign activities in their official capacities, the wording in the revised bill submitted by the ruling parties has been modified to "using such influence or benefits as are accessible by reason of official position and which facilitate the particularly effective conduct of national referendum campaign activities." What does this revision specify and what will it restrict?

>> Regarding the allocation of free advertising, the revised bill submitted by the ruling parties stipulates that this will be used for public information concerning the proposed constitutional amendment, and residual portions will be equally allocated to positions in support of and against the amendment. That is, while some portions will be allocated to pro and con positions, other portions will be used to publicize the proposed constitutional amendment itself. This arrangement is advantageous to political parties in favor of the amendment and cannot be said to provide equal treatment of pro and con positions. What are your views on this matter?

>> Regarding the contents of the National Referendum Official Gazette, the revised bill submitted by the ruling parties has deleted the word "commentary" and replaced it with "easy-to-understand explanations of materials that can serve as reference." What is the difference between the two wordings?

>> The bill is obviously flawed, yet there is a rush to put this to a vote. This reflects the wish to rush things forward to suit Prime Minister ABE's amendment schedule. Faced with this truth, is it not totally inappropriate to claim that the bill aims to create a fair and impartial system that is unrelated to the prime minister's amendment schedule?

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

>> How do you respond to the many voices that say the deliberations of the bills should not be rushed?


TSUJIMOTO Kiyomi (Social Democratic Party)

(Comment)

>> In last week's open hearing, we heard the views of speakers selected from the public. Only in today's committee meeting, was the Democratic Party of Japan given an opportunity to explain the contents of its revised bill. To rush the matter to a vote constitutes an act of legislative suicide, and must be avoided in order to safeguard the authority and prestige of this Special Committee.

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

>> Do you agree with the statement of Prime Minister ABE that the Liberal Democratic Party's draft constitution contains the best proposals for constitutional amendment, and that the adoption of these revisions is the most desirable course of action?

>> Do you believe the amendment proposals of the ruling parties to be the best possible amendments? Will the Liberal Democratic Party's draft constitution be put to the vote under the national referendum system proposed in the bill submitted by the ruling parties?

>> How many amendments to the present Constitution are contained in the Liberal Democratic Party's draft constitution? I believe there is a contradiction between the number of amendments contained in the Liberal Democratic Party's draft constitution and the assumption made by the presenters of the bill submitted by the ruling parties that only two or three amendments need to be made. What are your views on this matter?

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

>> Will the Liberal Democratic Party's draft constitution be put to the vote under the national referendum bill that has been submitted?

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

>> In light of the overseas research conducted by this Special Committee, there is something very discomfiting about the proposed restrictions on the participation of civil servants and educators in national referendum campaign activities. I would like to know the reasons why Japan should adopt such restrictions.

>> It has been reported in the media that there was an outbrurst of dissatisfaction within the Liberal Democratic Party concerning the treatment of the restrictions on political activities contained in the National Public Service Law and Local Public Service Law, and that for this reason the revised bill does not contain any exemptions from the application of these provisions. Is there any truth to these reports?

>> Under what conditions will civil servants be allowed to participate in such national referendum campaign activities as the distribution of leaflets and joining in protest marches? Who is to make this judgment? Will the people be able to understand what is permitted and what is not permitted by reading the proposed legislation?

>> How will prefectural governors and mayors be able to participate in national referendum campaign activities? Will they be subject to the restrictions on political activities contained in the National Public Service Law and Local Public Service Law?

>> There are those who still fail to understand the essence of our discussions concerning the difference in the types of restrictions that apply to national referendums and public elections. For this reason, I believe this discussion should be continued. What are your views on this matter?

(Comment)

>> The deliberations should not be terminated at a time when many questions and doubts concerning the bills remain to be resolved.