At the Constitutional Research Committee of the House of Representatives on the 31st, each party exchanged opinions on how to respond to emergencies such as catastrophes, and while there was an opinion that the Constitution should be revised and the provisions prepared in Japan, related laws and regulations have been prepared. There was also an opinion that there was no need for revision.
At the Constitutional Research Committee of the House of Representatives held on the 31st, discussions were held based on overseas cases on how to respond to emergencies such as wars and large-scale disasters.
In this, the Commissioner General of the Legal Affairs Bureau of the House of Representatives explained that in more than 90% of countries overseas, provisions regarding emergencies are stipulated in the Constitution, and there are many cases in which wars, civil wars, disasters, etc. are assumed.
Also, as a concrete example, it was introduced that the Constitution of Ukraine includes extending the session of the parliament in an emergency, and that it is actually in operation following the military invasion by Russia this time. I did.
After that, opinions were expressed by each party, and the Liberal Democratic Party and others said that the Constitution should be revised and the provisions should be prepared in Japan as well. There was an opinion that it should be stipulated to what extent the human rights of Japan should be restricted.
On the other hand, the Constitutional Democratic Party and others have pointed out that Japan already has relevant laws and regulations to respond to emergencies, and that there is no need to amend the Constitution, and that it may lead to abuse of power. rice field.
In addition, at the secretariat meeting held prior to this, the Liberal Democratic Party proposed to ask a comprehensive question on how to respond to emergencies at the examination committee next week, and will continue to discuss it.