Ignoring Separation of Power
The court decision obscured the separation of powers in the governmental system of Japan. The Third Petty Bench of Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for compensation of damages by the opposition parties that the delayed convocation of Diet by Shinzo Abe administration in 2017 had been unconstitutional. The court argued that the constitution did not guarantee the right of each lawmaker. The opposition parties tried to discuss Abe’s scandal over the relationship with school owners in Diet session. The court literally ignored the right of citizens to know about the details of top leader’s activity.
In February of 2017, a news report revealed a deal of land sales from the government to Moritomo Gakuen for building a new elementary school, which Principal Emeritus was Abe’s wife, in extremely discounted price. In the next month, a lawmaker with opposition party made a question about a rare approval for opening Division of Veterinary Science in a college of Kake Gakuen, which was run by Abe’s close friend. Those two scandals were the greatest issues in the Diet session of the year, and Abe was serious about not giving the oppositions a chance to discuss them.
After the ordinary session was closed, the opposition parties demanded both Houses of convocation for an extraordinary session with request of a quarter of total members of either House, as Article 53 of Constitution required. But Abe Cabinet did not convoke the session for 98 days and dissolved House of Representatives at the beginning of the extraordinary session. The opposition parties argued that Abe administration arbitrarily destroyed the opportunities for discussing the scandal.
Supreme Court simply dismissed the demand of compensation and did not decide whether Abe administration violated the Constitution. Meanwhile, the court admitted that the appeal was a legal conflict solvable by legal judgements. It is possible that the same kind of appeal will be discussed in the court and a sentence of unconstitutionality will be delivered in the future. One thing remarkable was an incidental opinion of Judge Katsuya Uga, which obliged the executive branch to convoke the session within 20 days from the submission of demand. He argued that the cabinet had to pay for the compensation.
There are 37 cases of Diet convocation required by Article 53 since 1948. The average between the demand of convocation and actual convocation is 65 days. The longest case was 176 days at the time of Eisaku Sato Cabinet in 1970. The clause of a quarter demands, however, represents the principle of respect of minor opinions, which consists of important basis of democracy. If the judicial branch partially supports one of other two governmental powers, democracy can easily be deteriorated. Regardless the interest of an administration and the impact of governmental collapse, justice has to be implemented for the interest of the people.
Comments
Post a Comment