Photo/Illutration Lawyers representing plaintiffs head for the Supreme Court in Tokyo on Sept. 12 before the top court ruled in the lawsuit over the Cabinet’s failure to convene a Diet session in response to request by opposition parties. (Asahi Shimbun file photo)

While the Imperial Diet was considering the draft of the Constitution in 1946, some members argued that the Diet should always be in session to fulfill its duties.

They called for a constitutional provision requiring the legislature to work year-round, in principle.

Tokujiro Kanamori (1886-1959), who was the minister in charge of the Constitution at that time, responded to the call by saying it should be so ideally speaking.

But, he added, in reality, work related to the Diet would hamper government operations.

“As a measure to compensate for not keeping the Diet in session year-round, there is a provision requiring the convocation of a (Diet) session when a quarter or more of the Diet members make the demand,” he said.

With these words, Kanamori explained the aim of Article 53, which is to ensure that minorities also have opportunities to express their opinions.

Seen from the viewpoint of today, the exchanges recorded in the minutes are inspiringly refreshing. The remarks by both sides reflect a solid determination to establish the concept of public sovereignty in this nation. How things have changed since those days.

In the past several years, the Cabinet has often ignored opposition requests for the convocation of an extraordinary Diet session based on the constitutional provision. These actions signal a gross lack of commitment to protecting the Constitution.

I was probably too naive to expect the Supreme Court to deliver a striking blow to this trend.

In its recent ruling on the constitutionality of the failure of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s Cabinet to convene a Diet session in response to an opposition request based on Article 53, the top court dismissed the argument of the opposition lawmakers who filed the lawsuits.

The court did so without determining whether the Abe Cabinet violated the Constitution.

It is a small solace that Justice Katsuya Uga issued a dissenting opinion arguing the Cabinet’s response of this kind to such a request is “illegal” except under special circumstances. I really hope that the government will be touched by the important implications of this dissenting opinion.

During deliberations on the draft Constitution at the Imperial Diet, it was asked what if the Cabinet did not respond to such a request.

Kanamori responded to the query by saying, “I believe people working here are those who can become models of political integrity.” He meant there was no need to worry about such a situation.

The question is whether the current Diet members are people who can really serve as such models. If not much is to be expected from the judiciary, it is the role of the people, with whom resides sovereign power, to remain vigilant of the Cabinet’s actions.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Sept. 17

* * *

Vox Populi, Vox Dei is a popular daily column that takes up a wide range of topics, including culture, arts and social trends and developments. Written by veteran Asahi Shimbun writers, the column provides useful perspectives on and insights into contemporary Japan and its culture.

Related News