*Translated by Google Translate

Introduction

This was four days after former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was murdered.

On July 12, 2022, bureaucrats in the Prime Minister's Office, under the orders of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, went to consult with the Cabinet Legislation Bureau about the decision to hold a state funeral by cabinet decision alone. Public opinion is split on whether to hold a state funeral. The Prime Minister's Office went to the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, the "guardian of the law," to ask for its opinion.

The two sides held talks over three days from July 12th to 14th.

Tansa has requested a record of the discussion under the Freedom of Information Act.

▲The process leading up to the decision to hold a state funeral

However, the records were not made public. The reason given was that "the records were either not kept or were thrown away." There is no law that stipulates the implementation of state funerals. For that reason, Prime Minister Kishida held a meeting with the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, as he stated in a press conference on July 14th, "We are making a decision after thoroughly coordinating with the Cabinet Legislation Bureau." There is no way that records of such important discussions would not exist.

The Freedom of Information system is a treasure of a democratic society. It allows citizens to obtain public records that are concentrated in the executive branch and to verify them for the future.

This trial is a fight to take the freedom of information back into our hands.

Overview of the case

In this case, they are seeking disclosure of the "State Funeral Documents," which are records of discussions held between the Cabinet Secretariat and Cabinet Office and the Cabinet Legislation Bureau from July 12 to 14, 2022, regarding holding a state funeral by cabinet decision.

On September 30, 2024, the nonprofit organization Tansa filed a lawsuit against the government in the Tokyo District Court. The plaintiffs are represented by five lawyers from the Japan Civil Liberties Union (JCLU).

Regarding the state funeral documents, Tansa had requested disclosure from the Cabinet Secretariat and the Cabinet Office under the Freedom of Information Act, but a decision was made not to disclose them on October 28, 2022. The reasons for non-disclosure are as follows:

Cabinet Secretariat: "The documents in question have not been created or acquired, or have been discarded, and are no longer in our possession."

Cabinet Office: "We have not created, obtained, or possessed any administrative documents related to the disclosure request, so we will not disclose them."

However, then Prime Minister Kishida stated at a press conference that the Cabinet's decision to hold a state funeral was "a decision that was made after thorough coordination with the Cabinet Legislation Bureau," and in the Diet that "after thorough confirmation with the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, we made this decision based on the judgment that we were able to make the decision as a government." It is unthinkable that the contents of the discussions would not be recorded, or that they would be discarded.

The purpose of this lawsuit is to have the decision not to disclose overturned and for the state funeral documents to be disclosed.

Background

The starting point is the question of why a state funeral, which would divide public opinion and require public funds, was decided upon by cabinet decision without consulting the Diet.

Tansa focused on the Prime Minister's press conference on July 14, 2022. Although it had only been six days since former Prime Minister Abe was assassinated, Prime Minister Kishida stated that he had coordinated with the Cabinet Legislation Bureau to hold a state funeral by cabinet decision.

The Cabinet Legislation Bureau is responsible for checking whether bills submitted to Cabinet meetings are in accordance with the Constitution and other laws. It is also known as the "guardian of the law."

Prime Minister Kishida has claimed that the cabinet decision was made with the approval of the "guardian of the law."

Therefore, on July 26, Tansa filed a request for disclosure of the records of the discussions with the Cabinet Legislation Bureau.

Only one document was made public: a record of a meeting entitled "Regarding the Cabinet's decision to hold a state funeral for a former prime minister as a national ceremony."

▲The disclosed "interview record"

Although the contents of the discussions were not included, the following entry in the "Record of Meeting" caught my attention.

Consultant: Cabinet Secretariat, Cabinet Secretariat, Cabinet Secretariat, General Affairs Division

Consultation date: July 12th to 14th, 2020

This means that discussions were held over three days, from July 12th to 14th, between the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, the Cabinet Secretariat, and the Cabinet Office.

We therefore made requests for disclosure of information to the Cabinet Secretariat and the Cabinet Office.

However, what was disclosed was a four-page document titled "Regarding the Cabinet's decision to hold state funerals for former prime ministers as a national ceremony." This is a reference document used during the discussions. It is not a record of the meeting.

There was a three-day meeting, so there was no way there wouldn't be minutes. I once again requested disclosure from the Cabinet Secretariat and the Cabinet Office.

The result was that "documents do not exist." The reason given was that either the records had not been created or had been discarded.

In January 2023, Tansa filed a review request. A review request is a system in which the Information Disclosure and Personal Information Protection Review Board, which is made up of legal experts such as lawyers and former judges, reviews whether the decision was correct.

In June 2024, a report was issued stating that "both of the decisions not to disclose the information in the two cases were appropriate." This led us to decide to file this lawsuit.

The issues in this lawsuit

In this trial, the plaintiff must prove the existence of documents that the other party claims "do not exist."

To do this, we will show how important this document is from three points of view and argue that it "could not possibly not exist."

1. The obligation to create and preserve documents is stipulated by law

First, you need to understand the Freedom of Information Act and the Public Records Management Act, which are said to be the "two wheels of a car."

Article 1 of the Public Records Management Act defines public records as "intellectual resources shared by the people that support the foundation of a healthy democracy."

Article 4 stipulates the obligation to create documents , and Article 6 stipulates the obligation to preserve documents .

What's important is that Article 4 clearly states what documents you are obligated to create.

2. The country and the government have been discussing state funerals.

The Cabinet Secretariat and the Cabinet Office claim that the documents were "not created" and "discarded," but this is exactly the case regarding the process of the Cabinet decision under Article 4, paragraph 2. Article 4 excludes "matters in which the processing is minor."

But this is not the case when we consider the second point.

Whether holding a state funeral by cabinet decision is in accordance with the constitution and the law was an important issue for the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, as there has been ongoing discussion by the nation and the government regarding state funerals.

Before the war, there was a "State Funeral Order" that allowed for state funerals to be given to members of the imperial family and people who had made distinguished contributions to the country, but this expired in 1947. After the war, the only state funeral was for former Prime Minister Yoshida Shigeru in 1967, but the following year in the Diet, an issue arose over expenditure from reserve funds, which do not require a Diet resolution. Finance Minister Mizuta Mikio responded, "After all, we need to create some kind of standard."

When Prime Minister Sato Eisaku passed away in 1975, a "national funeral" was held. According to the Nikkei newspaper at the time, government and LDP leaders met to discuss the matter, lasting 1 hour and 40 minutes. Yoshikuni Ichiro, Director-General of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, cited the absence of legislation regarding state funerals. Yoshikuni also expressed the view that if a state funeral were held, "it would encompass the three branches of government - legislative, executive, and judicial - and would include attendance by the Diet and the courts."

Given these circumstances, the records of discussions on the legal basis for holding a state funeral for Prime Minister Abe cannot in any way be considered "minor."

3. Public opinion as shown by opinion polls

The third is public opinion.

At the time, many public opinion polls on state funerals conducted by the mass media showed that the majority were against them. Nevertheless, the state funeral was held without any deliberation in the Diet. The documents recording the contents of discussions with the Cabinet Legislation Bureau are essential records for the Kishida administration to guarantee the legitimacy of the state funeral.

Social significance

This lawsuit is being supported by the Japan Civil Liberties Union, a public interest incorporated association. The plaintiff, Tansa, is represented by five lawyers from the association. This symbolizes the significance of this lawsuit.

The Japan Civil Liberties Union was established in 1947 when the Constitution of Japan came into force, and has been working to protect fundamental human rights.

The Japan Civil Liberties Union was also a major driving force in the citizens' movement calling for the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act. Now that the system for free information is in turmoil, it is inevitable that the Japan Civil Liberties Union will fight this lawsuit from the citizens' perspective.

The basis of democracy is to keep records and make them available for verification by all members of society. Article 3 of the Freedom of Information Act stipulates that "anyone can make a request" regarding those who have the right to request disclosure. It is a system that is open to everyone, regardless of age.

We do not want to question the merits of state funerals. We want to put a stop to this so that democracy does not fall into dysfunction. In recent years, not only state funeral documents but also the concealment and falsification of public documents by the government has become widespread.

I hope that all those who respect democracy will support this trial.

Use of funds

In order to win the case, we will try to obtain various evidence. This will require new disclosure requests and interviews with related parties. The funds will be used to cover all costs associated with the case (including the costs of collecting evidence, such as disclosure requests, labor costs, and stamp duty).

In order to maintain our independence as a news organization, we do not accept any advertising fees from companies. We also do not charge subscription fees so that anyone can read our articles. Funds for operation are covered by donations from citizens and grants from foundations and funds. Currently, three full-time staff members handle all reporting and reporting while also taking on administrative responsibilities such as fundraising.

Plaintiff’s thoughts

Representative plaintiff: Shu Watanabe (Editor-in-Chief of Tansa)

Message from the lawyer in charge

Yoichi Kitamura, Minerva Law Office (Second Tokyo Bar Association)

Tatsuro Futaseki Shinhirakawacho Law Office (Second Tokyo Bar Association)

Ryoko Takahashi, Harago Law Office Tachikawa Office (Second Tokyo Bar Association)

Takahiro Ono, Harago Law Office (Tokyo Bar Association)

Yuki Nishimura, Harago Law Office, Koshigaya Office (Saitama Bar Association)

Conclusion

In order for a small organization like ours to win, we need the support and encouragement of the public who are backing this lawsuit. We appreciate your help.