6/25/2020 Details of 1999 (Gyo-Tsu) 35 | Judgments of the Supreme Court population of each province by the number of seats of respective provinces (however, if the province constituency demarcation commission acknowledges that there is a special circumstance such as the convenience for voting, there are instances where a limited exception is allowed). The total number of the members of the Federal House of Representatives is adjusted, in principle, in accordance with the numbers of population of each state by virtue of Article 51, para.1 of the Constitution of 1867, and based upon a census which takes place every 10 years. However, since Canada is a federal state, there are some exceptions. Incidentally, in order to prevent arbitrary demarcation, province constituency demarcation commissions are organised in a politically neutral way. Actually, of the three members of the commission, one is a provincial supreme court judge, and the remaining two are appointed by the Speaker of the Federal House of Representatives. The plan of demarcation is examined by each province, and then submitted to the chairman of the Federal Election Administration Commission, and ultimately is approved by the Federal House of Representatives . If one looks at the above-mentioned states, it is obvious that a much stricter position on the equality principle regarding the value of votes is adopted there. In order to see how much the equality principle as provided by our Constitution has been neglected in election of the members of the Diet, and to what extent it is possible to rectify the situation with the goal of 1:1 in view, these examples from foreign countries are very instructive. 10. The fundamental issue at contest in the accumulated litigation on the apportionment of seats in our country depends on how the concept of equality should be understood in modern times. In the long history of human beings, equality and freedom were expanded from gods to kings, kings to lords, then to a minority wealthy class, and finally to the people in general. In Japan, it was only in the mid-20th century that the people in general came to enjoy equality and freedom. It should not be forgotten that not only the scope of protection, but also the content and the extent of equality continue to change and deepen with cultural and economic developments. Representative democracy is the expression of the principle of equality in the political system of the nation. It is realised in the actual election system in the form of the principle of 'one man one vote'. It is acknowledged that giving people an 'equal opportunity to take part in politics' is the most desirable political system which now exists after long historical experiences. In implementing this system, in various countries around the world, there were instances where some discrepancy in the value of votes was allowed, but with the deepening of the pursuit for equality in the society, the permissible discrepancy has become rapidly narrowed, and nowadays, the discrepancy of 1:2 (this virtually means that a value of two votes is given to a vote) can never be regarded as lawful, and it is the common knowledge in the civilised society that the value of the vote has to be as close as possible to 1:1. Now the time has come when we cannot continue leaving equality which is a common value of human beings, at a level far remote from the level required and accepted in the world by using the uniqueness of our country or its accumulated precedents as pretexts. If one reminds oneself of the example from the USA of the case where the long maintained notion of 'separate, but equal' on the ground of a unique social background was corrected, today, when the 21st century is upon us, there is no doubt that it is time to correct the long-standing notion that '1:3 or 1:6 discrepancy in the value of votes is still equal'. 11. Separation of powers as provided by the Constitution respects the autonomy of each power, but presupposes that those powers correctly check each other. If the Diet neglects the principle of equality in the value of votes as provided by the Constitution and fails to observe it, it is the responsibility of the judiciary to find it unconstitutional. Even if a https://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=458 17/23