Previous 2 / 24 Next

6/25/2020 Details of 2017 (Gyo-Tsu) 47 | Judgments of the Supreme Court The Constitution of Japan Article 14 (1)All of the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin. Article 15 (1)The people have the inalienable right to choose their public oﬃcials and to dismiss them. (3)Universal adult suﬀrage is guaranteed with regard to the election of public oﬃcials. Article 43 (1)Both Houses shall consist of elected members, representative of all the people. Article 44 The qualiﬁcations of members of both Houses and their electors shall be ﬁxed by law. However, there shall be no discrimination because of race, creed, sex, social status, family origin, education, property or income. Public Oﬃces Election Act Article 14 (1) Constituencies for members of the House of Councillors to be elected by constituency and the number of members of the House of Councillors to be elected in each constituency are speciﬁed in Appended Table 3. (2) Even in the event of the abolition, creation, division or amalgamation of a prefecture or prefectures eﬀected pursuant to the provisions of Article 6-2, paragraph (1) of the Local Autonomy Act, the constituencies for elections of members of the House of Councillors to be elected by constituency and the number of members of the House of Councillors to be elected in each constituency remain as they were before such event. The ﬁnal appeal is dismissed. Main text of the judgment (decision) The appellants of the ﬁnal appeal shall bear the cost of the ﬁnal appeal. Reasons Concerning the reasons for the ﬁnal appeal, argued by the appellants who also stand as appeal counsel, YAMAGUCHI Kuniaki, KUNIBE Toru and MISAO Michihiko, and the appellant, MORI Toru 1. This case is a suit seeking invalidation of an election ﬁled by the appellants who are voters in the Tokyo Constituency and the Kanagawa Constituency with regard to the ordinary election of members of the House of Councillors held on July 10, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "Election"), alleging that the provisions on the apportionment of seats for members of the House of Councillors to be elected by constituency stipulated in Article 14 and Appended Table 3 of the Public Oﬃces Election Act (hereinafter these provisions, including those in Appended Table 2 prior to the revision by Act No. 2 of 1994, are referred to as the "provisions on the apportionment of seats" over a period before and after multiple revisions) are unconstitutional and invalid, and therefore the elections https://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=1534 2/24

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

2017 (Gyo Tsu) 47 [Judgments concerning the constitutionality of the provisions on the apportionment of seats for members (to be elected by constituency) of the House of Councillors stipulated in Article 14 and Appended Table 3 of the Public Offices Election Act]

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the electoral code system, in light of the migration from constituencies, should be declared unconstitutional?

Alleged Acts: The plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the apportionment scheme for Tokyo and Kanagawa are unconstitutional and invalid and the recent election utilizing that scheme should be declared invalid. When originally set for the constituency disparity had a maximum of 1:2.62. However, after migration throughout the nation, this gradually increased. At its highest in 1992, this disparity reached 1:6.59 and in 2007 went back down to 1:5.

Procedural history: In 1994, the court held that although there was grounds for a constitutional review if there was extreme parity, there was not sufficient evidence in the case before the court. Again in 2001, the court reached the same conclusion and further explained that the proper avenue for reform was through the legislative process not through the courts. The representation system then underwent revisions in the legislature.

Summary: The court determined that the 2015 revisions overcame the existence of the disparity between the constituencies. Further, the court determined that the revisions had additional correction mechanisms that would permit the constituencies that were not merged to make future changes to rectify the disparity. These revisions included merging the less-populated constituencies to reduce the disparity to 1:2.97 from the 1:5 level.

Conclusion: The voting parity by jurisdiction did not create inequality severe enough to be unconstitutional.

Legal Issue(s)

Voting Systems (Winner-take-all, proportional, etc.)

Region: Asia-Pacific

Country: Japan

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Sep 17, 2017

Geolocation

Latitude: 35.73293063

Longitude: 139.7553762

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

2017 (Gyo-Tsu) 47 _ Judgments of the Supreme Court.pdf
english
Download View