Due to our lawyer's emergency hospitalization, the 13th hearing (Wednesday, September 17, 2025) has been postponed.

We are working hard, including recruiting additional lawyers, in preparation for the next hearing.

After the previous hearing (12th hearing on Wednesday, June 4, 2025), the defendant submitted an application to change the next hearing date on Wednesday, June 18. The next hearing was scheduled to be the hearing date for the chief priest, but the chief priest was unable to attend and was considering whether to appear, and the defendant was also considering whether to question him. Will the defendant accompany the chief priest to represent his schedule?

I thought the postponement was inevitable, but no matter how long I waited, I received no further communication. Finally, the day before the scheduled hearing date of July 9th (Wednesday), the court contacted our lawyer. The defendant's schedule was such that September 17th (Wednesday) was the only option, and there was no other option.

This is the kind of behavior from a defendant who had requested a speedy trial when the court requested proof regarding the "war heroes." This reminded me of the first lawsuit filed by residents against the landfilling of the Kaminoseki nuclear power plant site, which we won after damaging the court's image. This was the only lawsuit we won regarding the Kaminoseki nuclear power plant. However, the decision was overturned at the high court and later on.

Returning to the main topic, in addition to presenting a new date, the defendant submitted, as expected, a request for questioning of the chief priest himself. However, he called it a summons. Even though they were arranging the schedule...

As for the proposed schedule, my lawyer said it was possible, so I adjusted my schedule and agreed to the defendant's request for Wednesday, September 17th at 10:50. Now that I have the time, I would like to spend it on creating a written interrogation, taking into account the defendant's summary of the interrogation.

Report on the 12th oral argument of the first instance trial

The oral argument starting at 11:30 a.m. on Wednesday, June 4, 2025 was also enjoyable.

That being said, I was actually a little nervous.

This is because if all three of the plaintiffs' applications for certification (a constitutional scholar, a governor, and a chief priest) had been rejected, this could have been the end of the case.

After both sides had submitted their preparatory briefs (five from our side and eight from the other side) and their opinions on witness testimony, the presiding judge began to speak.

First, is there any evidence to support the defendant's claim that they only accepted the invitation from the Prefectural Bereaved Families Association, ignoring three of the four groups that invited them? The defendant said they would submit internal documents from the prefectural government, but this would be a repetition of their own claims of self-perception. The issue is the perception of the inviters and the people of the prefecture.

Next, the court asked the governor to tell them the distance from his home to the Gokoku Shrine. This was also directed at the defendant. I'm sure they will calculate the cost, but what is the court trying to do with that? Will it be considered an illegal expenditure, or will it be overlooked because it is a small amount?

And finally, the time came for the witness testimony. As per usual, the presiding judge spoke in a voice so loud that the spectators in the courtroom could hardly hear.

"As a result of the discussion, the constitutional scholar and the governor decided that, in any case,"

(What do you mean, "Anyway"?!)

"I would like to approve the chief priest's application for identity cards."

As I had been worried, I was half happy, but I still couldn't accept that the two of them were not selected.

However, if the chief priest's testimony is obtained, there is a high possibility that the governor's "delusional words" will be overturned.

It was the defendant who panicked.

When asked by the court if he planned to hold an interrogation, he replied, "We hadn't anticipated it..."

(That's probably true.)

The court decided not to go so far as to "detain" the suspect.

If he refuses, we'll call in another Gokoku Shrine chief priest...

The next hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, July 9, 2025 at 2:00 p.m., also in Courtroom No. 31 of the Yamaguchi District Court, where the chief priest will be questioned.

The defendant (the governor's side) presented the seventh preparatory document.

The court said, "The plaintiff will of course have a counterargument."

We replied, "Yes, we do. We are currently preparing it. We are also preparing personal and documentary evidence."

The court said, "Then let's wait for the rebuttal before deciding whether or not to grant the testimony application that has already been submitted."

Defendant: "We submitted our written request early on..." etc.

It was like that.

Our deadline for submitting written requests is Wednesday, May 21st, and the next hearing will be held on Wednesday, June 4th at 11:30 at the Yamaguchi District Court.

I wonder if there are any researchers on Gokoku Shrine...

Report on the 10th oral argument of the first instance trial

Held at Yamaguchi District Court on Wednesday, February 12, 2025.

The plaintiffs presented Preparatory Document 4. The contents of the document mainly prove that "Eirei" is a term used by a specific religion.

The defendants (the governor, etc.) stated that they did not believe it was necessary to delve into religious matters, but that they would like to submit a rebuttal by the next hearing.

The deadline for defendants to submit written documents has been set as Monday, March 24th, and the 11th oral argument will be held on Monday, April 21st.

The trial will be held at Yamaguchi District Court on Wednesday, December 18, 2024 at 11:30.

The plaintiffs submitted a letter of opinion by a constitutional scholar, and also submitted an application for the certification of three individuals (the former constitutional scholar, the chief priest of Yamaguchi Prefecture Gokoku Shrine, and the governor of Yamaguchi Prefecture).

In response to the request for testimony from the constitutional scholar, the defendant submitted two written opinions stating that testimony was not necessary, and once in response to the request for testimony from the chief priest and the governor.

In response to the defendant's opinion that testimony from witnesses was not necessary, we, the plaintiff, submitted a written rebuttal to the constitutional scholars. However, as the defendant's written rebuttal was due shortly, we were unable to submit a written rebuttal to the chief priest and the governor.

Before deciding whether to accept the witness testimony, the court asked the plaintiff to prove that the religious content of Gokoku Shrine and the term "heroes" used by the governor in his speech were religious terms. The defendant argued that this was unnecessary, but the court rejected the argument and allowed the plaintiff to submit the evidence in a preparatory document.

The next hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 12, 2025 at 2:00 p.m.

Reflection on the war of aggression

On October 7th, oral arguments were held at the Yamaguchi District Court in a lawsuit claiming damages for the Yamaguchi Prefectural Governor's official visit to Gokoku Shrine. Attorney Tagawa, representing the plaintiff, submitted a document stating that he plans to submit a written opinion from Professor Ina Masaki, a former professor at International Christian University (September 13th). In response, the defendant's attorney submitted a written reply stating that "Professor Ina is not an expert on the issue of separation of church and state, so his testimony is not necessary." (October 1st) In response, the plaintiff's attorney replied that the written opinion had not yet been submitted, so they would request his testimony once it was released (October 4th).

What we are asking Professor Ina to prove is that "the Yamaguchi Prefecture Governor's official visit to Gokoku Shrine violates the separation of religion and state. It cannot be considered a social ritual even when viewed from the standard of purpose and effect. Even if it is a social ritual, it violates the separation of religion and state, given the intent and purpose of the principle of separation of religion and state." In this court case, the plaintiff's attorney stated that Professor Ina's written opinion would be submitted at the end of October. The defendant's attorney did not raise any objections. The court also agreed.

Governor Muraoka went to Gokoku Shrine in a government vehicle on official business and offered tamagushi. This is clearly a religious activity. It is illegal for the public to become involved with a particular religion beyond the limits that are appropriate. Repeated visits to the shrine make it the norm. Asking "Huh?" is important. We would like to hear Dr. Ina's testimony. We would like the judge to listen as well. The trial is reaching a climax. The next hearing will be on December 18th at 11:30. Let's do our best together.

(Haruhiko Toriie, Organizer of the Association for Minority Human Rights)

The seventh oral argument was held at the Yamaguchi District Court on August 23, 2024. The defendant, the prefecture, presented the sixth preparatory document. In the sixth preparatory document, the plaintiff's preparatory document states that "The Yamaguchi Prefecture Bereaved Families Association (a foundation) is an organization whose purpose is activities such as 'visiting Yasukuni Shrine' and 'honoring the spirits of the war dead', is an organization based on a specific religious ideology, and is an affiliated organization of Yasukuni Shrine and Gokoku Shrine." The Supreme Court does not provide a unified or centralized definition of religion under the Constitution, and judges the presence and degree of religious nature of events, etc., for each individual case, such as a groundbreaking ceremony. The plaintiff considers the Yamaguchi Prefecture Bereaved Families Association (a foundation) to be a "group based on a specific religious ideology" based on the purpose of its activities in the articles of incorporation. However, according to the Supreme Court's method of judgment, religious nature is judged within the context of the state and its agencies, and no specific involvement or individual facts have been asserted, which is inappropriate. ② In addition, the Yamaguchi Prefecture Bereaved Families Association (foundation) is not directly related to Yasukuni Shrine or Gokoku Shrine, so it is not an "associated organization." ... and other arguments related to the case.

The plaintiff stated the outlook for the submission of expert witness opinions and related preparatory documents. The constitutional law scholar originally scheduled to appear was unable to do so due to various circumstances, and it was decided to ask former International Christian University constitutional law professor Masaki Ina to take the role. However, due to his work commitments, he stated that the opinion is expected to be submitted at the end of October. In response, Nakayama Osami, the attorney representing the prefecture, requested that the trial be expedited, citing the time it would take to submit the expert opinion. Tagawa will provide an overview of Ina's research findings in the near future, and the prefecture's attorney will provide an "opinion on issuing an expert opinion." The next hearing is set for Monday, October 7th at 11:00 AM.

A briefing was held at the Bar Association building. Attorney Tagawa explained, "The plaintiff's preparatory brief does not criticize the framework of the Supreme Court precedent. Whether based on the Supreme Court precedent or on the purpose and effect standard, the argument is that the governor's visit to Gokoku Shrine is unconstitutional. Nakayama says, 'We have no choice but to overturn the Supreme Court precedent,' but that is not the case."

Plaintiff Obata said, "Ms. Ina is a Christian like me, and she fears that she will be seen as opposing the governor's visit to the Gokoku Shrine because she is a Christian. We are not fighting because we have different religions. Everyone's freedom of religion must be guaranteed (Article 20 of the Constitution). Freedom of religion is being violated, but many people are oblivious. This trial marks a new step toward establishing freedom of belief. It will also affect visits to Yasukuni Shrine by the prime minister, cabinet members, and members of the Self-Defense Forces."

A comment was made from the audience, "Defense Minister Kihara Minoru visited Yasukuni Shrine on August 15th. Kihara does not see a problem with the SDF members' visit to Yasukuni Shrine in January, and says that 'the 1974 administrative vice-minister's notice should also be reviewed.' We must stop the movement to promote war." The administrative vice-minister's notice warning against the separation of religion and state in the SDF was issued in response to the lawsuit filed by Nakatani Yasuko (1973) against the enshrinement of SDF personnel at Yamaguchi Prefecture Gokoku Shrine.

There was also a call for a study session to be held the following day on "Reading the First Instance Trial Records of the Lawsuit Against the Enshrinement of Self-Defense Force Members."

The testimony of the surviving family members whose relatives are enshrined at Yamaguchi Prefectural Gokoku Shrine will also be important evidence, so we are continuing to search for them. We ask for your attention and support for this lawsuit.

(Plaintiff/caretaker: Rikiya Miwa)

Report on the unconstitutionality of Yamaguchi Prefectural Governor's official visit to Gokoku Shrine (8)

Shigeki Asada

In the morning of July 8, 2024, the sixth oral argument of the above-mentioned trial was held at the Yamaguchi District Court.

Prior to that, on June 21st, the defendant, Yamaguchi Prefecture, submitted the fifth preparatory document and Exhibits 19 to 21, and on June 25th, the plaintiff submitted the second preparatory document.

In the Defendant's fifth preparatory brief, "Regarding the procedure for disbursing fuel costs for the official car used by the Governor" - an explanation in response to a request for clarification of the details of the procedure and the amount at the previous oral argument - it is noteworthy that 13,104 yen was paid as fuel costs to the Yamaguchi Prefecture Oil Cooperative (Exhibit B-21). 1) The use of an official car does not constitute an act of financial accounting. 2) Since the request for a resident audit was rejected, it cannot be said to be a prelude to a resident office lawsuit. They tried to get away with it with such absurd arguments, but since that failed, it seems that they are now trying to say that the financial accounting procedures were properly carried out.

The plaintiff's second preparatory brief argued that "Governor Muraoka's visit to the shrine in question violates the Constitution" at this point in time.

In summary, the court made the constitutional significance of the principle of separation of religion and state very clear, and based on that, argued that "these things must be taken into consideration even when judging according to the purpose and effect standard." It used the same Supreme Court Grand Bench decision of July 13, 1997, which stated, "The act should be judged objectively in accordance with accepted social standards, without being limited to the external aspects of the act, including the place where the act is performed, the religious opinion of ordinary people regarding the act, the intention of the perpetrator in carrying out the act, the purpose, and the presence or absence and degree of religious significance" (Supreme Court Grand Bench decision of July 13, 1997), to arrive at a completely different argument and conclusion.

In other words, Yamaguchi Governor Muraoka Tsugumasa's official visit to Gokoku Shrine is in every sense a "religious activity," and regardless of his subjective intentions, it stands out from the objective facts and the public's sensibilities. He is criticized for visiting a specific Shinto ideological and religious site, offering tamagushi prayers, calling the dead "heroes," and continuing to enforce the idea of glorifying the "holy war" of the Empire of Japan (religious activity). He further claims that this has the effect of supporting, encouraging, and promoting Yasukuni Shrine and Gokoku Shrine.

By the way, at the post-trial briefing (Yamaguchi Prefectural Bar Association Hall), the plaintiffs' attorney reported that after explaining the questions on the second preparatory brief, he was asked by the presiding judge about 1) the status of securing academic witnesses, 2) the testimony of the bereaved family, and 3) further arguments (preparatory briefs), but he only said that he would reveal them at the next trial, and gave vague answers. These three points should be discussed at the plaintiffs' attorneys' conference, cleared up as soon as possible, and the third preparatory brief should corner the prefecture and its attorney. Finally, I would like to report that the defendant's attorney was adamant that the sixth preparatory brief had already been prepared.

(Asada Shigeki/caretaker/plaintiff)

Report on the 5th oral argument in the first instance

The fifth oral argument was held on Wednesday, May 8, 2024, from 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom No. 31 of the Yamaguchi District Court, the same as the previous hearing.

The defendant, the governor, had already presented his rebuttal in the last hearing, so this time, for the first time, I presented my rebuttal in a preparatory document to the defendant's rebuttal. However, due to time constraints and other circumstances, I was only able to rebut the first part of the case, that is, the defendant's assertion that the requirements for a resident lawsuit were not met.

In essence, the defendant's argument is that it does not meet the requirements for a resident lawsuit because it does not constitute a financial accounting act. However, since they presented a case in which a resident lawsuit was tried even for the use of a public vehicle, perhaps it was difficult for the court to reject the case. The fact that the court wanted to reject the case shows that it was fully prepared to reject the case at the third oral argument in the resident lawsuit to prohibit the landfilling of the Kaminoseki nuclear power plant site, which began at 2:00 p.m. on the same day, even though the opening arguments were almost the same, the court was clearly prepared to reject the case. I think the difference is simply whether there is a precedent or not. In other words, it seems that the judge is a bureaucratic person who has no intention of setting a precedent. Unfortunately, this is the current state of the Japanese judiciary.

The next hearing will be held on Monday, July 8th at 11:30. We (the plaintiffs) will be presenting our rebuttal to the defendant’s rebuttal on the merits of the case.

Please attend as an observer.