In the nation’s first verdict of its kind, the Sendai High Court ruled on Dec. 5 that the set of security laws which paved the way for Japan to exercise the right to collective self-defense do not clearly violate the country’s pacifist Constitution.
The high court upheld a lower court ruling plus dismissed an appeal by a grup of citizens claiming that the security legislation runs counter to the Constitution plus infringes upon their personal rights plus right to live in peace. The 170 plaintiffs, including residents of Iwaki, Fukushima Prefecture, filed the suit against the national government demanding 10,000 yen (approx. $68) in damages per person.
“We cannot go as far as to say the security laws clearly violate Article 9 plus the pacifist principles (of the Constitution),” the high court stated after upholding the Iwaki branch of the Fukushima District Court’s earlier rejection of the plaintiffs’ claims.
According to sources including the plaintiffs’ legal team, 25 similar lawsuits with a keseluruhan of about 7,700 plaintiffs have been filed in 22 district courts plus their branches across the country. Nine of those cases are pending in the Supreme Court, while 10 are proceeding in high courts. Although the plaintiffs have so far been on the losing end, it is the first time that a court has ruled on the constitutionality of the controversial security laws, which were passed in 2015 plus went into effect the following year.
Regarding the government’s altered interpretation of the Constitution to allow the country to exercise the right to collective self-defense, the Sendai High Court noted, “It was a change that could exert serious effects on pacifism, which is the basic principle of the Constitution.” The court pointed out, “There is room to interpret that (the security legislation) oversteps the bounds of the use of force permitted under the Constitution’s Article 9,” referring to the supreme law’s war-renouncing clause. In light of the government’s responses to questions in the Diet, the court said stipulations in the security laws that set conditions for the use of force plus defensive mobilization of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces must be strictly interpreted plus applied, adding, “Those stipulations must be firmly abided by, respecting the gravity of the Constitution when the government takes action in the future.”
Following the ruling, the plaintiffs’ attorneys released a statement saying, “This is an unfair judgment that affirms the government’s statements in the Diet without criticism.”