A recent district court ruling over the Cabinet's failure to convene a Diet session at the request of the opposition sadly fell short of upholding an important constitutional principle for a healthy democracy.

The court abdicated its responsibility as part of the judicial system.

Three years ago, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's Cabinet refused to grant opposition lawmakers' request for an extraordinary Diet session. A group of four current and former lawmakers filed a suit over the Cabinet's behavior, which the plaintiffs claim violated the Constitution.

In its June 10 ruling, the Naha District Court rejected their claim.

On June 22, 2017, the opposition camp called for a special Diet session to uncover the facts about political scandals involving two school operators directly or indirectly linked to Abe--Moritomo Gakuen and the Kake Educational Institution.

After dragging its feet for as long as 98 days, the Cabinet finally convened a Diet session on Sept. 28. But Abe dissolved the Lower House for a snap election at the outset of the session, precluding any substantial debate on issues.

The plaintiffs, current and former members of the Diet elected from Okinawa, filed a damages suit against the government, claiming that they were deprived of their rights to ask questions and discuss issues at the Diet.

They based their argument on Article 53 of the Constitution, which says, "The Cabinet may determine to convoke extraordinary sessions of the Diet. When a quarter or more of the total members of either House makes the demand, the Cabinet must determine such a convocation."

The court ruled that the disadvantages and losses caused by the Cabinet's failure to convene a session swiftly cannot be compensated for financially, adding that the plaintiffs' legal action is not in line with the purpose of the government compensation system.

The court made no decision on the constitutionality of the Cabinet's behavior.

The court should be criticized for evading the core question by discussing only technical issues concerning interpretations of laws. The conventional wisdom within the Japanese judicial community is that constitutionality decisions are better avoided if they are not absolutely necessary for the ruling. The court cannot make its work count if it only automatically follows this convention.

If the ruling reinforces the view that the Cabinet can go unpunished for neglecting a request for a Diet session based on the constitutional provision, the judiciary could end up effectively throwing its weight behind the Cabinet's high-handed behavior.

Members of the judiciary should never forget the basic premise that a democratic society stands on the checks and balances among the three branches of the government.

The government, for its part, should not take the ruling as a total endorsement of its position.

The government argued that a court should not make any judgment on a Cabinet decision concerning convocation of a Diet session, which it said is of a highly political nature.

But the district court ruled that the Cabinet is legally obliged to respond to a request for a Diet session based on the constitutional provision within a reasonable time frame, adding that the Cabinet's discretion over the timing is "limited."

The Cabinet's response to such a call can be subject to judicial judgment with regard to, for instance, whether it was too late.

This ruling leaves room for a court to adjudge the way the Cabinet responded to such a request to be unconstitutional.

The Abe administration has a history of turning a deaf ear to dissenting voices and disregarding the importance of the role of the Diet.

Symbolic of this propensity was the Cabinet's refusal to make a sincere and serious response to the opposition call for an extraordinary Diet session.

Now, even though the nation is still struggling with the effects of the new coronavirus pandemic, the Abe administration is seeking to end the current Diet session on schedule to close deliberations on related issues in an apparent attempt to escape attacks by opposition parties.

The ruling is, in a sense, a victory for democracy because the trial has underscored the importance of giving the political minority opportunities to express their views and opinions at the Diet.

This should prompt the Abe administration at last to change its posture toward the legislature.

--The Asahi Shimbun, June 11