Firm Oppositions in Testimony

The Special Committee for Security Issue in House of Councillors held a hearing from five experts on new security bills in Tokyo on Tuesday. While two scholars named by the leading parties supported the necessity of the bills, four people representing opinions of the opposite parties firmly resisted the legislative procedure the leading parties was pushing. There came up various reasons to oppose the bills.

Kazuya Sakamoto, Professor of Osaka University and a member of Meeting on Restructuring Legal Basis of National Security that submitted a report for reinterpreting the Constitution last year, represented supporters of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, stressing on necessity of new security legislation. “This is a legislation to drastically reinforce deterrence for safety of our country and enhance ability to contribute to the world peace. It is necessary and preferable in the growingly severe situation surrounding our country,” told Sakamoto. Takashi Shiraishi, President of National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, also supported the bills.

Against those supporters, witnesses against the bills raised various reasons to oppose them. Aki Okuda, one of the members of Student Emergency Action for Liberal Democracy, required abolishment of new security bills in current session of the Diet. “The bills should be dropped, because they could not achieve approval from the public in spite of unusual extension of current session of the Diet to the end of September,” told Okuda.

Scholars on constitution study explained why the bills were not suiting for Japanese policy more academically. “Impassively passing bills which are apparently unconstitutional is to unleash the supreme power free from any legislative regulation, more than a profanation of constitutionalism violating Article 99 of Constitution of Japan that requires respect and protection of the Constitution. It is the starting point of despotism for politicians, who are less than employees of a nation, to ignore the Constitution,” told Setsu Kobayashi, Professor Emeritus in Keio University.

Former Judge of the Supreme Court, Kunio Hamada, indicated distortion of constitutionality in the interpretation of the Constitution by Abe administration. “Changing Article 9 of the Constitution simply with Cabinet decision, that should have been done through amending process, must harm stability of legal interpretation. If one Cabinet can change it, other Cabinets are always able to overwrite it,” told Hamada. Reinterpretation of the Constitution for the security bills is hard to be justified.