6/25/2020 Details of 1999 (Gyo-Tsu) 35 | Judgments of the Supreme Court Furthermore, the problem of to whom and in what manner election campaigns shall be allowed, as part of the design of the election system, shall fall within the discretion of the Diet. However, it cannot be denied that by making the election system so that it is primarily based upon policies and political parties, in small constituency elections, there is a meaningful difference between candidates who belong to the candidate-presenting political parties and those who do not belong to such parties. In light of the fact that the freedom to be elected and to stand as a candidate are important basic human rights which are closely related to the free exercise of the right to vote, the Constitution requires that each candidate be treated in an equal manner in relation to election campaigns, but the Constitution does not prohibit the creation of differences based upon reasonable grounds. Thus, even if, as a result of Diet taking into account policy goals and grounds which Diet can legitimately consider, some differences in the treatment of candidates in the election campaign have emerged, it should be understood to be unconstitutional only if the specific decision of Diet cannot be recognised within the scope of its reasonable discretion, and harms the equality of the candidates. (2) [Summary 2] According to the above-provisions of the amended Law on Public Election, in small constituency election, in addition to the candidates, candidates-presenting parties are also allowed to conduct election campaigns. Allowing political parties and other political organisations also to conduct election campaigns is in itself understood to be derived from policy goals or grounds of making the election system to be based upon policies and political parties, which the Diet can legitimately consider, and their reasonableness can be fully recognised. On the other hand, by virtue of Article 86, para.1, subparas. 1 and 2, political parties which can be regarded as candidate-presenting political parties are limited to those which have more than five members of the Diet or those which in the latest national election of either house have gained more than 2% of the votes; other political parties are not entitled to become candidatepresenting political parties, and as a result, it cannot be denied that there is a certain differentiation between political parties concerning election campaigns. However, such requirements to the candidatespresenting political parties were understood to be introduced in order to make an election system based upon policies and political parties more effective, based upon the view that it is the political parties and organisations which have an organisation to reflect the political wills of the people, are continuously conducting certain activities, and are recognised to have people's support, that are worthy of fighting an election campaign to put forward their policies. Adoption of such a legislative policy has certain reasonableness and is not regarded as an excess of the scope of discretion of the Diet. Since, along with the candidates, candidate-presenting parties are also allowed to conduct election campaigns, it is inevitable that there are differences in the election campaigns between candidates who belong to candidate-presenting parties and those who do not. Only when such a difference reaches a level which can never be regarded as being reasonable in general, should the creation of such differences be regarded as an excess of the scope of discretion by the Diet. Differences which can be seen in the election campaign such as campaigning by using cars, loud speakers, documents and prints as well as newspaper advertisement and election meetings are of the level of differences which inevitably emerge as a result of allowing election campaign to candidate-presenting political parties. Those candidates who do not belong to candidate-presenting parties can also conduct election campaigns using cars, loud speakers, documents and prints, and also advertise in newspapers and organise election meetings. In light of the fact that these are in themselves not insufficient for the candidate to promote political views to the voters, such differences in the election campaign cannot be regarded as an excess of the scope of discretion by the Diet and thus, unconstitutional. Admittedly, Article 150, para.1 of the amended Law on Public Election, as regards small constituency elections, allows political broadcast only to candidate-presenting political parties, while others including candidates are not allowed to such a https://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=458 7/23