When the Cabinet fails to fulfill its constitutional duties, it is the role of the judiciary to rectify the situation.

From that point of view, the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Cabinet’s failure to convene a Diet session left much to be desired.

Six years ago, the Cabinet of then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe did not respond to an opposition request to convene an extraordinary Diet session.

Six opposition lawmakers filed lawsuits seeking compensation for what they claim was a violation of the Constitution by the Abe Cabinet. In its Sept. 12 ruling on the case, the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the final appeal by the plaintiffs.

Article 53 of the Constitution stipulates that the Cabinet must decide to convoke an extraordinary Diet session when “a quarter or more of the total members of either house makes the demand.”

Based on this provision, the opposition parties demanded that an extraordinary Diet session be held.

This action came as the Cabinet’s accountability was being called into question over political scandals involving two educational institutions linked to Abe--Moritomo Gakuen and the Kake Educational Institution.

However, the Cabinet left the request in limbo, and although an extraordinary Diet session was eventually convened 98 days later, the Lower House was dissolved at the outset.

That left no time for any substantive Diet deliberations. It was an attempt to preclude a debate in the Diet that would raise doubts about the Cabinet.

The opposition lawmakers who brought the case to the court asked for judicial confirmation that the Cabinet was obligated to decide on convening a session within 20 days as well as compensation.

But the top court rejected their appeal without determining whether the Abe Cabinet violated the Constitution, upholding the previous rulings by the district and high courts. The top court failed to perform its core function of judging the constitutionality of Cabinet actions that are called into question.

However, Justice Katsuya Uga, a former administrative law scholar, issued a dissenting opinion against the majority opinion of four of the five judges.

Uga argued that the Cabinet’s failure to convene a Diet session within 20 days in such cases is illegal except for in special situations such as when a regular session of the Diet is scheduled soon or during natural disasters.

He made a convincing case for the need for a legal means to prevent “a situation in which an extraordinary Diet session is not convened even after a request is made” under the constitutional provision.

Although the Supreme Court ruling represents a confirmed legal victory for the Cabinet, it does not mean the Cabinet has the right to ignore or neglect the convocation request as it has in the past.

As for a plaintiffs’ demand for judicial confirmation that the Cabinet is required to convene a session within 20 days when the Constitution-based request is made, the Supreme Court overturned the decisions concerning this issue by the district court and high court and acknowledged that this is a matter that can be challenged in court.

In the future, if the Cabinet does not respond to a convocation request and a lawmaker promptly sues, there is a possibility that the court will provide legal relief.

Article 53 of the Constitution is designed to protect the rights of minority groups in the Diet. The Diet should act swiftly to amend the law to ensure that the Cabinet will respond appropriately to convocation requests.

The Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, Nippon Ishin (Japan Innovation Party) and other opposition parties submitted a bill to amend the Diet Law to last year’s extraordinary Diet session that would oblige the Cabinet to convene the Diet within 20 days of the request for convocation.

There is a similar provision in the draft constitutional amendment compiled by the Liberal Democratic Party in 2012. There seems to be a political foundation for a bipartisan agreement on the matter.

Putting the decision on when to respond to convocation requests under the Diet’s rules, rather than leaving it to the Cabinet’s discretion, will likely lead to autonomous and fruitful debates in the Diet.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Sept. 15