The Supreme Court of Japan will hand down the judgment on the 25th in a case in which it is disputed whether it is unconstitutional that Japanese living abroad cannot vote in the national examination to judge whether the judge of the Supreme Court is suitable.
It is estimated that there are about 1 million voters living abroad, and it will be interesting to see how the people judge the weight of the right to examine judges.
"National examination" is a system in which the public examines whether or not a person is suitable as a judge of the Supreme Court, which shows the final conclusion of the judiciary, by voting, and is stipulated in the Constitution.
It is held in conjunction with the House of Representatives election, and people over the age of 18 who have the right to vote can vote, but Japanese people living overseas are not allowed to vote.
Article 15 of the Constitution stipulates that five Japanese film directors and lawyers who could not vote in the national examination five years ago (2017) because they lived abroad can dismiss civil servants if they cannot vote abroad. And accused the country of violating Article 79 of the national examination.
The Supreme Court decided to hear in a large court of all 15 judges, and in a speech held last month, a woman who lived in Brazil said, "It is the same Japanese, but it is not possible to do a national examination that should be the right of the people. It's funny. "
On the other hand, the government said, "Unlike elections, national examination is not an indispensable system. There is also a rational reason that it is technically difficult to carry out examination procedures in countries all over the world in a short period of time." Claimed not to be a violation.
According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it is estimated that there are about 1 million Japanese voters living overseas.
Both the 1st and 2nd trials decided that it was unconstitutional to be unable to vote abroad, and then pointed out that the 2nd trial had to approve the vote at the next national examination.
This is the first time that the Supreme Court has handed down a judgment on overseas voting in a national examination, and it will be interesting to see what kind of judgment the public makes regarding the weight of the right to examine a judge.
What is the relationship between national screening and overseas voting?
The Supreme Court provides the final conclusions of the judiciary and also checks whether the law violates the Constitution and whether there are any problems with the administrative response.
The constitutional "national examination" examines whether a judge of the Supreme Court with such strong authority is a suitable person by voting.
Judges who have never been examined after taking office, or judges who have been examined for more than 10 years, may be subject to examination, depending on the result.
The screening will be conducted in conjunction with the House of Representatives election, and voters over the age of 18 can vote, but Japanese living abroad are not allowed to vote.
On the other hand, regarding elections, an overseas voting system was established in 1998.
Initially, only proportional representatives in the lower house and parliamentary elections could vote, but in 2005 a lawsuit was filed to allow overseas voting in constituencies, and in 2005 the Supreme Court's large court said, "Limiting votes to proportional representatives. The system violates the constitution that guarantees the right to vote. "
In response to this ruling, the Public Offices Election Law was amended to allow overseas voting not only in proportional representation but also in constituencies since the 2007 Upper House election.
The national government cites differences in voting methods as the reason why overseas voting that is possible in elections cannot be done by national screening.
▼ In the election, enter the name of the candidate you want to win on the ballot, but in the national examination, the name of the judge is printed on the ballot and put an "x" on the name of the person you want to stop. increase.
For this reason, the national government says that it takes time to print papers for national examination, and there are technical problems in conducting it overseas, and a bill on overseas voting has never been submitted to the Diet.
Both sides' claims and judgments of the first and second trials
At the trial, the plaintiff said, "Although the right to conduct a national examination is guaranteed by the Constitution, it is restricted because of living abroad. It is not allowed because of a violation of the Constitution." Recognizing the breach, he neglects to amend the law. It should be easy to resolve by writing the judge's name in the same way as in the election. "
On the other hand, the government said, "The national examination is not an indispensable system because it has a different meaning and history from the voting right that forms the basis of parliamentary democracy." Because of the voting method of writing a cross on the form, it takes time to create and send the ballot, and it is impossible to implement it overseas. There is a reasonable reason for a technical problem, and it is not a violation of the Constitution. " doing.
Three years ago, the Tokyo District Court of the first instance said, "The system of national examination that exerts democratic control over the appointment of judges in the Supreme Court is one of the rights of the people stipulated by the Constitution. In principle, it is not allowed, and it cannot be said that there were unavoidable circumstances in the 2017 national examination. "
He pointed out that the Diet did not take action and ordered the government to pay 5,000 yen per plaintiff.
In addition, the Tokyo High Court of the second trial decided that it was unconstitutional following the first trial, saying that "it is possible to vote abroad in the same way as the election, and it is against the constitution to not admit it at all". Did.
He pointed out that "it is the same as the right to vote, it is meaningless if you can not vote, and you can not remedy by compensation", and showed the first judgment that it will be illegal if you can not vote abroad at the next national examination. ..
The plaintiff seeking the next vote
A man who filed a lawsuit and still lives abroad said, "I want you to make a constructive decision to face the challenges firmly" before the judgment.
Tsukasa Hirano (43) is the only one of the five who filed the proceedings, who still lives abroad and is requesting that he be able to vote at the next national examination at the trial.
Mr. Hirano spent his childhood in Brazil due to his father's work, and then returned to Japan, but started working in Brazil at the age of 26 and now starts a business and supports Japanese companies. going.
He was temporarily returning home during the House of Representatives election five years ago and cast a vote in the election at a polling place in the country, but the national review vote was not accepted.
Regarding the feelings at that time, Mr. Hirano said, "It was frankly uncomfortable to be able to vote in elections but not in the national examination even though it is stipulated in the Constitution. In Brazil, I live as a foreigner and vote. Since I don't have the right, I am conscious of participating in elections in Japan. It is purely lonely to be told that I cannot do it just by living abroad. "
Regarding the reason for filing the complaint, "It is said that the national examination is a mere ghost, because it seems that Japan is calm and there is no need to dare to change the rules of society through the judiciary. I don't know if the situation will continue forever. I wanted to make sure that I could participate in the national examination, which has an influence on the judiciary, even if I live abroad. "
Also, in Brazil, electronic voting has been introduced in elections, and I am skeptical of the country's claim that it is technically difficult to conduct a national examination overseas.
Mr. Hirano said, "If there is a national election, we will know the result a few hours after the deadline, including the voting result in the hinterland of the Amazon rainforest. I do not want to introduce the mechanism as it is, but it is in Japan. I would like the legislature and the government to take the stance of adopting it in a form. I would like the entire nation, including Japanese living overseas, to participate as widely as possible. "
In addition, he said in the decision on the 25th that he hopes for the Supreme Court, "I want you to make a constructive decision to face the issue firmly, rather than looking for a reason for not allowing the vote."