Imagine a soccer team playing in a match refereed by the manager of the opposing team. When the side in the disadvantageous position files a complaint about unfair refereeing with an independent dispute-settling body, it is dismissed on grounds the team had no right to file a complaint in the first place.

This, more or less, sums up what happened when the Supreme Court on Dec. 8 upheld a high court decision siding with the central government in a dispute with the governor of Okinawa Prefecture over construction of a U.S. base.

The case stemmed from the central government’s decision to nullify the prefectural administration’s retraction of a permit issued in 2013 to reclaim a shore area off Henoko in the city of Nago to build a replacement facility for the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Ginowan, a crowded city in the southernmost prefecture. The top court dismissed the prefectural administration’s appeal.

Former Okinawa Governor Takeshi Onaga retracted the landfill permit after a large swath of soft seabed was found in the planned reclamation area. The Defense Ministry’s Okinawa Defense Bureau invoked the administrative complaint review law and filed a formal objection against Okinawa’s move with the land minister, who predictably rescinded the prefectural administration’s decision to revoke the permit.

The Supreme Court did not question the legitimacy of the clearly unfair process in which the government effectively endorsed its own policy decision by ruling the prefectural government does not have the legal capacity to file a suit against the state’s action.

It is unusual for the central government to file a formal objection under the law, which is designed to protect private citizens from illegal administrative actions. Many scholars studying administrative laws have accused the central government of abusing the system. The top court’s decision is unfortunate as it failed to clarify whether complaints by the government filed under the law should be deemed legitimate and treated in the same manner as those from private citizens seeking relief.

Okinawan prefectural authorities have filed a flurry of lawsuits concerning the U.S. base project. Of the 12 cases filed since 2015, nine have concluded. Final court rulings on five of them represented a legal defeat for the prefecture.

The prefectural administration has continued fighting in the courts because the judiciary continues to refuse to acknowledge the local government’s right to challenge policy actions by the state without addressing core questions involved.

Who should settle or rule on legal disputes between the state and a local administration? In the Henoko case, core issues include whether sufficient measures were taken to solidify the seabed when the plan was drawn up and what actions should be taken to deal with the risk of subsidence and threats to the ecosystem. The judiciary’s role here is to consider all these issues and scrutinize the prefectural government’s decision to retract the permit to decide which side has a stronger case.

The lawsuit underscored how the value and importance of local autonomy is being eroded in this country.

If a minister can rescind a local government decision by using the process of filing complaints against administrative actions, it means the central government can effectively force local administrations to follow its policies.

Interfering in local government decisions and actions is known as “arbitrary involvement,” which allows the state to reject local government decisions, thereby undermining the independence of local administration.

Local governments demanded a review of this approach when the administrative complaint review law was revised in 2016. But no fundamental change resulted.

Last year, the National Governors’ Association called on the government to rethink this approach to ensure that the central and local governments can respond to policy challenges on an equal footing.

This issue concerns local autonomy itself and has implications that go far beyond problems concerning Okinawa. The central government has a duty to review and reconsider the system.

It should not be permitted to unilaterally impose its policy decisions, even those concerning national defense, on local administrations. As long as the central government remains unwilling to engage in serious talks with local administrations over controversial issues and continues acting as if it were a superior administrative entity, the vision of local autonomy prescribed by the Constitution will never materiaize.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Dec. 15