6/25/2020 Details of 1999 (Gyo-Tsu) 35 | Judgments of the Supreme Court television broadcast is indispensable, but this view does not pay sufficient attention to the scale of the influence of radio or television broadcasting nowadays and or the fact that there are local radio and television stations spread nationwide, and therefore, these are not justifiable grounds for the differences. Furthermore, political broadcasting should not be assessed separately, but should be considered inseparable from other election campaigns allowed to candidate-presenting political parties and compares with the election campaign allowed to candidates. To summarise, the view that the benefit which candidates who belong to a candidate-presenting political party receive is at the level which inevitably emerges by allowing election campaigns to candidatespresenting political parties should be regarded as overly conservative. On the contrary, the difference in the election campaign between candidates who belong to the candidate-presenting political party and those who do not belong to such parties has reached a level which can hardly be acknowledged as reasonable. 5) The possibility of qualifying as candidate-presenting political parties 1. Even if becoming a candidate who belongs to a candidatepresenting political party entails a major effect as examined above, if it is easy for a person who intends to stand in an election to organise a political party or an organisation, or by changing the organisation of the political party or the organisation to which he belongs, to become a candidate who belongs to a candidate-presenting political party, standing as a candidate who does not belong to such a party will mean that the candidate has waived the possibility of receiving a benefit in relation to the election campaign, and therefore, there is no problem concerning the difference in the benefit. 2. However, according to the amended Law on Public Election, the requirement to become a candidates-presenting political party is either having more than5 members of the Diet or having gained more than 2% of the total valid votes in the latest election. Although most existing political parties seem to have no problem in fulfilling this requirement, there is no possibility for political parties or organisations which do not fulfil this requirement to become candidate-presenting political parties, and this creates a factor which seriously prevents the establishment of political organisations with new policies aiming at the next election. Therefore, those who intend to stand in the election and who do not belong to a candidatepresenting political party must either be content with conducting an election campaign under disadvantageous terms and make efforts to gain more votes than the candidates who belong to candidatepresenting political parties, or, waiving his right to association in reality, unwillingly join a political party which qualifies as a candidatepresenting political party and stand as a candidate of this party. 6) Conclusion Thus, as seen above, carrying out an election with such major differences between candidates who belong to the candidatepresenting political party and those who do not belong to such parties, while closing the possibility to become a candidatepresenting political party results in forcing candidates who do not belong to candidate-presenting political party to take part in the 'race' in extremely disadvantageous terms. Therefore, provisions of the amended Law on Public Election concerning election campaigns in small constituency elections allow discriminatory treatment, depending on whether the candidate belongs to a political party or an organisation which fulfil the requirements determined by the law without reasonable grounds, and are against Article 14, paragraph 1 of the Constitution and also against the organisational principle of the Diet. However, taking into account that even if the election in the constituency in question is invalidated, elections in other constituencies are not necessarily invalid, and as a result of the judgment which invalidates the election, a situation which the Constitution had not presupposed emerges, even if temporarily, in the present case, in addition to the grounds as stated in iii 3, in accordance with the doctrine of declaratory judgment, the https://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=458 22/23