In the first use of its power to question a religious corporation, the education ministry on Nov. 22 mailed the Unification Church a list of questions on its operations and finances, demanding a reply by Dec. 9. 

"I hope to find out objective facts accompanied by specific evidence and documents by exercising the right as well as collecting information from related people and analyzing that," Education minister Keiko Nagaoka told a news conference on Nov. 22. 

The ministry sent the letter by mail to the embattled church, now formally called the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification later in the day.

The ministry's authority to question a religious corporation was incorporated into the revised Religious Corporation Law, which went into effect in 1996, a year after the Aum Shinrikyo doomsday cult’s deadly sarin gas attack on Tokyo’s subway system.

The power can be exercised if the religious corporation conducts an act that meets the requirements for the issuance of a dissolution order, such as an illegal act that significantly harms the public’s welfare.

The ministry is required to present the contents of questions to the Religious Corporations Council and ask the council’s opinion before exercising the right.

At a meeting of the council held on Nov. 21, the ministry reported that it will ask the church to report about its organization, its operation, its earnings and expenses, and its holdings.

The council members did not oppose the plan and approved the ministry's power to question the church, which has come under fire for the egregious  donations elicited from followers and ties to lawmakers.  

With the exercise of the right to question, the ministry hopes to ascertain the details of 22 civil court rulings that have confirmed organized illegal acts by the church.

Based on collected materials, the ministry will decide whether it will ask a court to issue a dissolution order to the church.

If the ministry wants to ask the church to report on another matter after it mails it the questions, the ministry needs to consult with and have it approved by the council, the ministry said.

If the ministry needs to visit a church facility to ask the church a question, it must be approved by the council, and then the ministry needs to obtain consent from the church, based on the law.

If the church fails to report or makes a false report, it will be required to pay an administrative penalty up to 100,000 yen ($705) under the law.

It appears that the ministry will not disclose much of the specifics of the contents of the investigation to the public.

A Cultural Affairs Agency representative spoke to reporters after the Nov. 21 council meeting.

The representative declined to tell reporters about the specific contents of the questions to the church, citing that it would hinder the effective exercise of the right.

The ministry hopes to find out details of the 22 civil court rulings.

But the representative declined to reveal if the questions the ministry will send to the church on Nov. 22 includes questions related to the 22 rulings.

The council decided to release a meeting summary but not disclose the minutes, which includes the people who spoke at the meeting and what they said.

The representative said a summary will be released only if the ministry asks a court to issue a dissolution order to the church and after the court’s decision is finalized.

So it will be difficult to learn of the detailed contents of the meeting discussion for some time to come.

Kensuke Ueda, a constitutional law professor at the Sophia Law School, said the council’s discussion on the church matters "likely includes items related to the privacy of followers.”

He also said if the contents of the questions are released to the public in advance, it may hinder the proper exercise of the right to question.

Therefore, disclosing the questions is not appropriate.

At the same time, Ueda said the ministry’s decision-making process to question the church and the contents of the council's discussion “will become an antecedent when the right is exercised again in the future” and therefore “the ministry itself should explain afterward.”