Photo/Illutration Journalist Jumpei Yasuda, center, speaks to reporters following the court ruling in Tokyo’s Kasumigaseki district on Jan. 25. (Asahi Shimbun file photo)

The judiciary has issued a stern admonition to the foreign minister regarding the scope of discretion the minister can use in denying the issuance of passports to citizens, saying that it is not broad. 

This weighty judicial opinion takes into account that the freedom of overseas travel guaranteed by the Constitution involves not only economic freedom but also mental freedom.

The Foreign Ministry should take prompt action in responding to the ruling.

In a lawsuit filed by journalist Jumpei Yasuda, who was denied passport issuance by the Foreign Ministry on the grounds of an entry ban from Turkey, the Tokyo District Court ruled last month that the foreign minister had overstepped or abused his discretionary power, annulling the decision as illegal.

Yasuda, who was detained by an armed group in Syria for three years and four months when he was covering the civil war there, returned to Japan in 2018.

The following year, he applied for a passport.

The Passport Law allows the government to refuse passport applications from “persons who are not permitted entry by the laws of their destination countries,” and the Foreign Ministry refused to issue one to Yasuda, citing an entry ban imposed on him by the Turkish government.

The verdict last month stated that the discretion associated with denying passport issuance is not broad and that the purpose of the applied provision is to maintain the relationship of trust between Japan and the country that has banned someone’s entry.

The ruling asserted that Yasuda’s trips to regions other than Turkey or its neighboring countries would not damage such diplomatic relationships that Japan has with his destination countries.

This is an inevitable decision based on common sense and natural reasoning. Without a passport, it is practically impossible to go abroad. Considering the significant implications of refusing a person’s passport application, the decision not to issue a passport to a specific individual should be made with extreme caution.

Just because a person is banned from entering a specific country, it does not make sense to deny them opportunities for all international travel regardless of the destination country or purpose. Such an action could even imply the government’s intention to impose a “sanction” on the person.

For example, it may have been possible to issue a passport specifying countries of travel, excluding Turkey and its neighboring countries, when Yasuda applied. The Foreign Ministry is required to take action that does not unnecessarily prolong restrictions on freedom.

The provision in question has been in place since the Passport Law was enacted in 1951. When it was introduced, the provision was not inconsistent with other legal principles since, at that time, general passports were issued for a single round trip to a specified destination.

When the law was revised to allow for multiple re-entry travels without specifying destinations, however, there might have been an oversight in not reviewing the wording.

The Diet should re-examine the related provisions and deal with any legal issues that might arise.

The freedom to travel is directly linked to the freedom of reporting and journalism overseas. Five years after applying for a passport, Yasuda says, “Even though I could return to Japan, it felt like I was still being detained.”

In the past, there were cases where passport issuance for travel to the former Soviet Union or China was denied on the grounds of “risking harm to national interests,” leading to lawsuits.

Today, when many people hold passports, any decision concerning the issuance of a passport should be a convincing and well-thought-out one.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Feb. 6

Related News