6/25/2020 Details of 2001 (Gyo-Tsu) 82 | Judgments of the Supreme Court say, the suit for the alternative claim is a legal controversy. Consequently, the suit for the alternative claim in this case can be regarded as a legal suit that is intended to obtain declaration that the jokoku appellants who will continue to reside abroad shall be eligible to vote in an election of members under the single-seat constituency system in the next general election of HR members and in an election of members under the constituency system in the next regular election of HC members on the grounds that they are listed on the overseas electoral register. 4. Next, we examine acceptability of the alternative claim. As mentioned above, the part of the provision of Article 8 of the Supplementary Provisions of the Public Offices Election Law that limits, for the time being, the applicability of the overseas voting system to elections of members of the Houses of the Diet under the proportional representation system is in violation of Article 15(1) and (3), Article 43(1), and the proviso of Article 44 of the Constitution and therefore invalid. Thus, the jokoku appellants indicated in the attached List of Parties 1 are eligible to vote in an election of members under the single-seat constituency system in the next general election of HR members and in an election of members under the constituency system in the next regular election of HC members on the grounds that they are listed on the overseas electoral register. Consequently, the alternative claim for declaration is well-grounded and it should be upheld without the need for further argument. IV. Claim for state compensation Article 1(1) of the Law Concerning State Liability for Compensation provides that when a governmental official who is in a position to exercise the public authority of the State or of a public body has caused damage to an individual citizen in violation of his legal duties toward that citizen, the State or the public body concerned shall be liable to compensate such damage. Therefore, the issue of whether or not the legislative act or legislative omission by Diet members can be regarded as being illegal for the purpose of the said provision should be determined depending on whether or not Diet members have acted in violation of their legal duties toward an individual citizen in the legislative process. This issue should be distinguished from the issue of unconstitutionality of the contents of legislation or legislative omission, and even if the contents of legislation or legislative omission were against the Constitution, the legislative act or legislative omission by Diet members would not be immediately deemed to be illegal due to such unconstitutionality. However, in exceptional cases where it is obvious that the contents of legislation or legislative omission illegally violate citizens' constitutional rights or where it is absolutely necessary to take legislative measures to assure the opportunity for citizens to exercise constitutional rights and such necessity is obvious but the Diet has failed to take such measures for a long time without justifiable reasons, the legislative act or legislative omission by Diet members should be deemed to be illegal under Article 1(1) of the Law Concerning State Liability for Compensation. The purport of 1978 (O) No. 1240, judgment of the First Petty Bench of the Supreme Court of November 21, 1985, Minshu Vol. 39, No. 7, at 1512, is not contrary to this reasoning. The jokoku appellants who were residing abroad were also guaranteed by the Constitution the opportunity to vote in national elections, and in order to assure such opportunity to exercise the right to vote, it was absolutely necessary to take legislative measures to establish an overseas voting system. However, according to the facts mentioned above, although a bill to enable Japanese citizens residing abroad to vote in national elections was adopted by the Cabinet and submitted to the Diet in 1984, no legislative measures were taken for more than ten years from when the bill was quashed until the Election was held. Such a significant omission falls under exceptional cases mentioned above, and therefore it cannot be denied that there was legislative negligence. This legislative omission prevented the jokoku appellants from voting in the Election, thereby causing mental distress to them. For this reason, in this case, the claim for state compensation by reason of such illegal legislative omission should be upheld. https://www.courts.go.jp/app/hanrei_en/detail?id=1264 14/21