District court rulings on former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s refusal to convene an extraordinary Diet session in response to lawmakers’ request based on a constitutional provision have tainted the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution.

Four years ago, Abe’s Cabinet did not convene an extraordinary Diet session for nearly 100 days after a group of opposition lawmakers made the request under a constitutional article.

Some of the lawmakers filed separate lawsuits with the Naha, Tokyo and Okayama district courts seeking compensation from the state. All the courts have rejected their claims without deciding whether the Cabinet violated the Constitution.

Article 53 of the Constitution stipulates the Cabinet must convene an extraordinary Diet session “when a quarter or more of the total members of either House” demands such a session.

The Abe Cabinet put the request, made in June 2017, on the shelf and left it there for 98 days until it convened an extraordinary session but only to dissolve the Lower House at the outset for a snap election, without allowing debate on any policy issue.

To avoid being grilled over political scandals involving Moritomo Gakuen and Kake Educational Institution--two school operators linked directly or indirectly to Abe, his Cabinet effectively deprived the Diet, the highest organ of state power composed of representatives of the people, of an important and constitutionally guaranteed opportunity to discuss related issues.

The outrageous action symbolized the Abe administration’s contempt for the rule of law.

Some of the opposition lawmakers filed the suits to seek compensation claiming they were illegally denied an opportunity to exercise their rights to question the government over the scandals.

All the district court rulings rejected their requests, basically saying individual lawmakers have no legal rights to make such demands. By rejecting the plaintiffs’ requests on grounds of a legal technicality, so to speak, the courts shirked judging the constitutionality of the Abe Cabinet’s act, which is the core issue.

Article 53 of the Constitution allows a minority group in the legislature to demand a Diet session for ensuring that the Cabinet fulfills its duty to explain its decisions and actions to the Diet. If the Cabinet disregards or fails to fulfill this duty, the judiciary should hold it responsible for such disregard or negligence as part of its key role.

The district courts were too timid about addressing a constitutionality issue when they decided not to delve into the issue in these cases simply because they were going to reject the requests of the plaintiffs on other legal grounds. With these decisions, the courts effectively abandoned their mission and undermined democracy in this nation.

But the rulings handed down by the Naha and Okayama district courts had some notable elements.

They stated that the Cabinet has a “legal obligation” to respond to such a request for an extraordinary Diet session within a reasonable period of time and pointed out that the Cabinet’s failure to do so could be judged to be a violation of the Constitution, depending on the circumstances.

The Cabinet of Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga and his successors should take the implications of these rulings seriously and act accordingly.

One factor that allowed the Abe Cabinet’s outrageous act of ignoring the request is the lack of a clear rule concerning the time limit for the Cabinet’s response.

In 2012, when the Liberal Democratic Party, the current ruling party, was in opposition, it announced a draft to amend the Constitution, which would have required the Cabinet to convene a Diet session within 20 days in such cases.

But the issue can be addressed without going so far as amending the Constitution by simply introducing a new provision into the Diet law. In fact, such a proposal was submitted to the Diet in the past.

This is an issue that is deeply related to the roles and functions of the Diet. Legislators in the ruling camp should also understand that it has huge implications for all Diet members. The Diet should start debate immediately.

--The Asahi Shimbun, April 15