Photo/Illutration The plaintiffs’ legal team hold up banners celebrating their victory on appeal in front of the Osaka High Court on March 13. (Tetsuaki Otaki)

Two high courts issued contrasting rulings on March 13 in lawsuits challenging Japan’s largest cuts to welfare benefits since World War II—one finding the cuts to be illegal, the other, legal.

The plaintiffs in both cases claimed that government cuts to livelihood assistance, implemented from 2013 to 2015, violated the right to live guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution and sought to have the cuts reversed.

In the Kyoto lawsuit brought by 32 plaintiffs, Tetsuji Saito, the presiding judge of the Osaka High Court, overturned the ruling of the lower court, declaring the reduction of benefits illegal.

However, in the Saga lawsuit involving seven plaintiffs, Gunichi Kurushima, the presiding judge of the Fukuoka High Court, agreed with the lower court in finding the cuts lawful.

Including these two cases, 31 lawsuits have been filed over the same issue in 29 district courts across the nation.

So far, high courts have reached decisions in seven of these cases—three overturned the reduction, while four upheld it.

Earlier cases are currently under review by the Supreme Court.

Welfare recipients surged following the 2008 global financial crisis.

The Liberal Democratic Party, which had pledged to cut welfare levels by 10 percent, returned to power in 2012. The following year, the welfare minister announced a reduction in benefits.

The standard amount of livelihood assistance benefits, intended to cover daily necessities including food and utilities, was reduced by an average of 6.5 percent, totaling 67 billion yen ($452 million). This marked the largest cut to welfare benefits in Japan since World War II.

The Osaka High Court noted that while the welfare minister has a certain degree of discretion, any “errors or omissions” in decisions that must ensure a “minimum standard of living” would render those decisions illegal.

Furthermore, the court pointed out that the reduction in benefits had been factored upon a decline in prices since 2008. However, those lower figures heavily reflected significant price drops in five types of consumer electronics, including TVs and computers—not items that welfare recipient households usually spend much on.

The court said that the decision to reduce benefits had failed to properly account for consumption differences between households that receive livelihood assistance and general households.

The court also mentioned that the index used as a basis for setting the standard livelihood assistance amount was inconsistent in its calculation methods from year to year, meaning its statistical accuracy was not guaranteed.

It said that the welfare minister’s decision had “exceeded discretionary authority.”

The Fukuoka High Court, however, took a broader view of discretion, stating that an error or omission must be “significant” to be deemed illegal.

It ruled that issues with the index were “not significant enough,” to be illegal, saying, “Fiscal conditions must be taken into account, and taxpayer understanding is also essential.”

(This article was written by Issei Yamamoto and Hideoki Kozuki.)

Related News