Photo/Illutration The plaintiffs hold up a banner that says the high court "abandoned its responsibility,” following the ruling in Naha on March 17. (Takero Yamazaki)

NAHA--The Fukuoka High Court's branch here has become the latest judicial body to take a pass on a thorny political issue making its way up the courts.

The Naha branch dismissed an appeal on March 17 that asserted the Cabinet of then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe violated Article 53 of the Constitution in 2017 when it dragged its feet for about three months after the opposition parties requested it convene an extraordinary Diet session.

Presiding Judge Yutaka Taniguchi upheld the Naha District Court ruling that said the Cabinet “has the constitutional duty” to convene the Diet. But the high court did not rule on the constitutionality of the Cabinet’s inaction.

The plaintiffs, an incumbent lawmaker and three former lawmakers--all from Okinawa Prefecture--appealed the case to the top court on the same day.

Keiko Itokazu, one of the plaintiffs and a former Upper House lawmaker, was upbeat about part of the ruling.

“The court acknowledged the viewpoint that people’s opinions should be reflected in the Diet, regardless of whether they are minor or major,” she said.

But Yukihito Oguchi, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, criticized the ruling for not addressing the constitutionality of the Abe Cabinet’s delayed response.

“The Cabinet neglected an important obligation written in the Constitution, but the court hoisted the white flag, as if there were no way to force it to fulfill the obligation,” Oguchi said. “(The court) is not playing the role given to it by the people.”

Article 53 stipulates that the Cabinet must convene an extraordinary Diet session at the request of at least a quarter of all lawmakers from the Lower or Upper House.

On June 22, 2017, more than a quarter of lawmakers from each house asked the Cabinet to convene an extraordinary Diet session to discuss the Moritomo Gakuen and Kake Educational Institution scandals. The Abe Cabinet convened it on Sept. 28 only to dissolve the Lower House.

The high court upheld the lower court ruling, saying that Article 53 is understood as “the clause that stipulates the constitutional obligation to convene” an extraordinary Diet session within a reasonable time.

“It is needless to say that it is an extremely important constitutional obligation to fulfill the request,” the high court said. But the presiding judge did not rule on whether the Cabinet’s actions at the time were unconstitutional.

The ruling also pointed out that convening the Diet is an obligation held by the Cabinet to the Diet. The high court said that the state does not bear a legal obligation over this matter to individual lawmakers and rejected damages of 10,000 yen ($84.20) per plaintiff.

(This article was written by Shogo Mitsuzumi and Takero Yamazaki.)

Related News