Photo/Illutration The Diet building in Tokyo’s Nagatacho district (Asahi Shimbun file photo)

OKAYAMA--A court here ruled the Abe Cabinet was legally obligated to hold an extraordinary Diet session to allow questions on scandals involving then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, which it dodged in 2017.

But the Okayama District Court, in its April 13 ruling, did not address if the failure to call the session violated the supreme law.

It also dismissed a claim for damages filed by Takashi Takai, who was one of the opposition lawmakers who demanded the extra Diet session.

Takai, who was a Lower House member of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan at the time, has appealed the decision.

The case concerns a June 22, 2017, demand made by opposition lawmakers for Abe's Cabinet to call an extra Diet session to allow them to pursue favoritism scandals linked to Abe involving the school operator of Moritomo Gakuen and the Kake Educational Institution.

Despite the demand, it was 98 days later, on Sept. 28, when the Abe Cabinet called an extraordinary session.

Abe then, however, dissolved the Lower House at the beginning of the session for a snap election.

Article 53 of the Constitution stipulates, "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 on such a convocation.”

The clause does not refer to a specific time limit for the Cabinet to convene an extra Diet session. 

Takai filed the lawsuit in February 2018, seeking 1.1 million yen ($10,090) in damages from the state.

“An extraordinary Diet session should have been called within 20 days at the latest since the demand,” he said, citing two examples.

One is Article 54, which states the Diet must be convened within 30 days from the Lower House election day. And the other is that Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party’s proposed revision of the Constitution to call an extraordinary Diet session within 20 days after a demand was made.

In the ruling, the district court said that the Cabinet has a legal duty to convene a session within a reasonable time frame and that not fulfilling it allowed room for its actions to be deemed unconstitutional.

It said the last part of Article 53 is intended to reflect the voices of lawmakers in the minority in the Diet. 

But the court did not touch on whether the failure to do so was unconstitutional.

The court also examined whether the Cabinet’s failure to convene a session violated Takai's rights as an individual legislator.

It dismissed his claim for damages on grounds that a lawmaker is not eligible to demand an extraordinary Diet session alone and is supposed to be a representative of all members of the public.

There have been 38 demands for calling an extraordinary Diet session since 1948, according to the secretariat of the Lower House.

Of those instances, an extraordinary session was convened within 20 days on seven occasions.

The 98 days after the demand on Abe's Cabinet in 2017 is the longest gap before the request was fulfilled since 1970.

The Okayama District Court’s decision marked the third district court ruling on the Abe Cabinet case. All the courts dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for damages and avoided examining issues of constitutionality.

But Yasuo Hasebe, professor of the Constitution at Waseda University, took the Okayama District Court’s decision as a step forward.

“The court made it clear that the Cabinet is legally obligated to call an extraordinary Diet session, allowing for a consensus reached between judges and constitutional scholars,” he said.

But he also voiced dissatisfaction with the ruling.

“Is it acceptable for judges to turn a blind eye to the fact that the Cabinet did not take any action for 98 days?” he asked. “I am going to pay close attention to how the appeal hearing will unfold.”

(This article was written by Kenta Nakamura, Yuto Yoneda and Senior Staff Writer Shuichi Yutaka.)

Related News