Unconstitutional proceedings to convene extraordinary Diet session Tokyo High Court also rejects without showing constitutional judgment

Five years ago, despite a request by opposition lawmakers to convene an extraordinary Diet session under the provisions of the Constitution, it was argued whether the Abe Cabinet's failure to convene for more than three months would violate the Constitution. In the trial, the Tokyo High Court of the second trial dismissed the plaintiff's complaint without showing a constitutional judgment following the first trial.

After the ordinary session of the Diet was closed in June 2017, 120 members of the House of Representatives and 72 members of the House of Councilors said that it was necessary to discuss the issues of Moritomo Gakuen and Kakei Gakuen, and that the extraordinary Diet session was based on the provisions of the Constitution. The Abe Cabinet at that time did not immediately respond to the call, but it was called in September, 98 days later, and the House of Representatives was dissolved at the beginning.

Article 53 of the Constitution stipulates that the Cabinet must decide to convene an extraordinary Diet session if there is a request from one of the members of the Diet for more than a quarter of the members.

For this reason, a member of the House of Councilors Hiroyuki Konishi of the Constitutional Democratic Party has filed a lawsuit seeking compensation from the state, claiming that it is unconstitutional.

In the decision of the second trial on the 21st, Judge Satoshi Aizawa of the Tokyo High Court said, "There is no statutory provision that allows a lawsuit to be filed regarding the dispute over the exercise of authority between members of the Diet and the Cabinet." Following the trial, he dismissed the complaint without showing a judgment as to whether the Abe Cabinet's response at that time violated the Constitution.

Similar trials have been filed in Okayama and Okinawa, both of which have been dismissed.

Plaintiffs' defense team "The judiciary tolerates constitutional violations and disregards"

After the ruling, the plaintiffs' defense team held a press conference and announced that they would appeal to the Supreme Court.

Makoto Ito said, "Even though such a clear violation of the Constitution and ignorance of the Constitution have been made in the political world, the judiciary has tolerated it. It doesn't play a role at all. "