Photo/Illutration Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, center right, bows as the Lower House is dissolved on Sept. 28, 2017. (Asahi Shimbun file photo)

The Tokyo District Court on March 24 rejected a claim for state compensation filed by an opposition lawmaker who sued because his right to request an extraordinary Diet session and question government officials had been denied.

The court also made no mention of whether the Cabinet had a legal obligation regarding Article 53 of the Constitution, which opposition lawmakers said provides a key tool to allow minority views to be heard.

After the ruling against him, Hiroyuki Konishi, an Upper House member with the opposition Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, called it “a step backward” from the June 2020 ruling by the Naha District Court in Okinawa Prefecture.

That ruling said for the first time that the Cabinet was bound to obey Article 53, which states that an extraordinary Diet session must be convened if at least one-quarter of the members of either chamber ask for it.

Such a request was made in June 2017 by opposition lawmakers who wanted to question then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe about his involvement with two educational institutions, Moritomo Gakuen and Kake Educational Institution.

But Abe ignored the request and an extraordinary Diet session was only convened 98 days after the request was made.

And Abe immediately dissolved the Lower House, leading to a snap election without allowing the opposition to delve deeper into the two scandals, which they suspected involved favoritism because of close ties between the heads of the two institutions and Abe and his wife, Akie.

In filing the lawsuit, Konishi also wanted the district court to confirm that the Cabinet was obligated to convene an extraordinary Diet session within 20 days after such a request was made.

But the court rejected the claim for compensation on the grounds the rights mentioned by Konishi were granted to him in his position as a Diet member and not as an individual whose only avenue for compensation was through the courts.

The second request was also rejected on grounds the matter was a conflict between two agents of the government, a matter that courts would not normally rule on unless there is a specific legal provision.

Konishi said he would appeal the ruling.

While the Naha District Court said Article 53 had to be followed by the Cabinet, it did not go so far as to call the inaction by the Abe Cabinet unconstitutional.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Katsunobu Kato at his March 24 news conference expressed satisfaction that the government’s arguments had been heeded.

A constitutional law expert said the district court ruling had a subtle message directed at Diet members.

Shohei Eto, an associate professor at Sophia University, said the ruling did not absolve the Cabinet of its inaction.

“The ruling can be interpreted as a message to ‘find a path to resolve the issue democratically rather than through the courts,’” Eto said.

He said the ruling clearly stated that Diet members had the authority to request an extraordinary Diet session be convened.

“Lawmakers have the political responsibility to take on a Cabinet if they feel their request for a Diet session has been inappropriately rejected,” Eto said.

Related News