Columns that reveal the world
- Getting up close and personal with the researchers -

What kind of image do you have of the Constitution? When you hear the word "Constitution," many of you probably imagine it as something that has little to do with you, or something that is difficult to understand.

Generally speaking, the Constitution is thought of as something that the people should abide by, but this is a mistake. The current Constitution has two major roles. The first is to limit the power of the state, and the other is to guarantee the rights of us, the people. Furthermore, the ideas contained in the Constitution are the basis for many different laws. In other words, the Constitution is closely related to our daily lives. Let's think about the Constitution from this perspective.

On July 1st of this year, the government made a cabinet decision to change the interpretation of the Constitution to allow the exercise of the right of collective self-defense. This decision sparked a fierce debate, with large-scale protests taking place around the Prime Minister's Office.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is said to be a proponent of constitutional revision, and it seems that he wants to use this review of collective self-defense as an opportunity to ultimately begin a review of Article 9 of the Constitution. However, there are various opinions about the decision to approve the exercise of collective self-defense by "revising the interpretation of the Constitution" without going through the process of "constitutional revision."

First of all, there are two main arguments as to why the Constitution needs to be revised. One is that "Japan needs an independent constitution." The other is that "Article 9 of the Constitution needs to be revised to make Japan a country that can exercise military power." Of course, there are also people who say both.

After the war, Japan was able to return to the international community by establishing a democratic constitution. However, because the current Japanese constitution was drafted by the United States, some conservatives argue that this is an imposed constitution and are therefore undesirable.

So, is the Japanese Constitution really an "imposed constitution"? If we look at the history of the Japanese Constitution, we can see that the United States drafted the original constitution, and Japan revised it, and it was revised according to the procedures established for the old constitution, so there is no problem with the constitution in terms of form.

The people involved in drafting the constitution were American military officers and civilians belonging to the GHQ Government Section, and in fact there were no constitutional law experts among them. Therefore, in order to draft the constitution, they first had to gather materials. They scoured libraries all over Tokyo, scraping together constitutions from various countries. In drafting the constitution, they actually referred to not only the American constitution, but also constitutions from European countries, and wrote the draft with a flexible approach that differed from that of experts. As a result, the constitution contained human rights provisions that were at the forefront of the world's constitutions at the time, especially in regard to "social security" and "women's rights."

And what is most important is the fact that the current Constitution of Japan has been supported by the sovereign people for approximately 70 years since it came into effect.

In my opinion, the Constitution of Japan is a well-constructed constitution even from a comparative perspective, as it has more comprehensive provisions regarding human rights than the constitutions of other countries.

As mentioned at the beginning, the essence of the Constitution is the "guarantee of fundamental human rights." It is intended to restrict and limit the exercise of state power and guarantee the rights and freedoms of the people. In other words, the core of the Constitution is that in order to avoid a situation in which human rights are restricted or trampled upon by the state, human rights must be guaranteed by the Constitution and political power must be bound by the Constitution.

Many of you may find it difficult to visualize a specific situation in which human rights are restricted or violated by a nation. There are probably many who think that such a situation would never happen to them.

If you are one of those people, you might want to recall the "PC remote control incident" that occurred in 2012.

In this case, threats of random murders and an attack on an elementary school were posted on the Internet, and four men were arrested based on an investigation of IP addresses and other information. However, it was later discovered that the PCs of the four men had been remotely controlled by someone. Eventually, a person claiming to be the "real culprit" sent a criminal statement email to lawyers and confessed to his involvement in the crimes, leading the National Police Agency to admit that the four men had been mistakenly arrested.

In this case, the police admitted their mistake, but it was a big shock to us because it showed that in some cases, it is possible to "arbitrarily" punish completely innocent people as criminals, backed by the powerful power of the state. What's even more frightening about this case is that "anyone who uses a PC on a daily basis could have been a suspect."

The Constitution is intended to restrict and limit the exercise of state power when such situations arise and to guarantee the rights and freedoms of the people.

When we think about the essence of the Constitution in this way, many people may feel a renewed sense of discomfort about the procedure used by the Abe administration to approve the exercise of the right of collective self-defense.

It is only natural that some would say that making changes to the basic principles of the Constitution solely through the discretion of the Cabinet, without going through a process that directly asks the people for their opinion, is a fundamental denial of the reason for the existence of the Constitution.

I have explained that the Constitution is intended to guarantee the rights and freedoms of the people, and is closely related to our daily lives. Now, let's actually consider two issues that are important to our lives in light of the Constitution.

First, let's look at the issue of nuclear power. The government has positioned nuclear power generation as an important baseload power source, and has indicated its intention to "proceed with restarting" nuclear power plants whose safety has been confirmed. Is this government policy justified in light of the Japanese Constitution? Or is it unjust?

The preamble to the Constitution states, "We recognize that all peoples of the world have the right to live in peace, free from fear and want." "Peace" here does not simply mean a state without war, but the ability to live peacefully, free from threats to life, including disease, hunger, poverty, human rights violations, and disasters.

Although more than three and a half years have passed since the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident, victims of the nuclear accident can still be said to be violating important constitutional human rights such as the right to pursue happiness (Article 13), freedom of residence and relocation (Article 22, Clause 1), freedom of occupation choice (Article 22, Clause 1), right to life (Article 25), and property rights (Article 29). So, what do you think?

Next, let's consider the pros and cons of selling over-the-counter drugs (over-the-counter medicines) online.

In January 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that a Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare ordinance banning the online sale of pharmaceuticals was illegal, effectively lifting the ban on the online sale of over-the-counter drugs.

Article 22 of the Constitution stipulates that "everyone shall have the freedom to choose and move their residence and to choose their occupation, to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare." This "freedom of choice of occupation" means the freedom to decide which occupation one will engage in, and is considered to include the freedom to pursue one's chosen occupation, in other words, "freedom of business." However, as the phrase "to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare" states, the freedom of choice of occupation is one of the "economic freedoms," and has also been interpreted as a human right that can be restricted for the purpose of the public welfare.

Furthermore, in light of Article 25, which states that "All people shall have the right to maintain the minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living," online sales, where there is a possibility that adequate information about the risk of side effects is not provided, could be considered unconstitutional.

In fact, opinions in my seminar were split down the middle on this issue. For example, someone whose relatives have suffered serious health damage from a drug-related injury would feel a sense of crisis about the easy availability of medicine, and a mother with small children would naturally want to get the medicine as soon as possible. Judgments vary depending on the position each person is in.

The modern society we live in is faced with a variety of problems, many of which are difficult to judge as good or bad.

When you come across such issues through the mass media, why not get into the habit of considering your own stance in light of the Constitution? You may come to realize once again that the Constitution, which you may have previously thought of as something far removed from you, is in fact the law that is closest to you.

(Published in 2014)