TOKYO -- Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has showed dictator's arrogance in pushing forward a series of controversial security-related bills in parliament, but his autocracy quickly backfired since three prominent Japanese constitutional scholars testified in a Diet Session recently that the bills allowing the Self-Defense Forces to exercising the right to collective defense violate the country's Constitution.
Two of the three experts, Yasuo Hasebe, professor of constitutional law at Waseda Law School, and Setsu Kobayashi, professor emeritus at Keio University, in a joint appearance on Monday at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan criticized that the bills architected by the ruling coalition are "legally, politically and economically unwise" policies and would only result in the increase of danger facing Japan.
Hasebe, who was appointed by Abe's ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) to testify in the Diet session, criticized that the prime minister's efforts to ram the bills "evaporate" the role of the constitution to limit political power, satirizing that "any interpretation of any constitutional clause seems now up for grabs " under the Abe administration.
The experts also pointed out that the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, which serves to provide legal advices to the government, has become seriously undermined on the issue since the LDP has changed the interpretation of the Constitution to allow the SDF to exercise the right to collective defense, as current bureau chief "is suspected to succumb to Mr. Abe's pressure."
After testifying in the Diet Session, Hasebe was accused by some LDP lawmakers of not being an expert on national security, but the constitutional professor recalled that he was considered as a national security expert by the ruling party when he said that to enact the controversial Special Secrecy Law is necessary for Japan's security couple of years ago.
"If you said I'm not an expert on the national security, you should immediately abolish the notorious secrecy law," said Hasebe, "If I say what is congruent with the interest of the government, they say I am an expert. And if I say something which is against the interest of the government, they allege that I am an inexpert. This is quite astounded."
The Japanese ruling coalition insisted that even under the war- renouncing Article 9 which prevents Japan from defending other nations, the country could dispatch the SDF abroad to engage in armed conflicts, even in the occasion that Japan was not directly attacked, so as to protect Japanese people's rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
The ruling LDP also quoted the controversial 1959 Sunakawa judgment to verify its position. The Japanese Supreme Court in 1959 nullified Tokyo District Court's rule which stated U.S. base in Japan violated the country's Constitution and the supreme court said that to host U.S. base in Japan, according to the Japan-U.S. defense treaty, is constitutional based on a country's natural right to defend itself for existence through necessary defensive means.
Vice LDP President Masahiko Komura quibbled that the "necessary defensive means" in the 1959 Supreme Court rule did not distinguish individual defense from collective defense and since the security environment surrounding Japan changed, therefore the right to collective defense should be exercised by Japan at the same time.
But the arguments by the ruling camp were refuted by the two constitutional experts with Kobayashi, a veteran fighting for amending the country's constitution, pointing out that sending SDF abroad to engage battles would "exceed the 'necessary and minimum' execution of power to defend" Japan, and he added that the duty of the SDF is to "use necessary and minimum power to subdue the opponent."
He continued to say that "if Abe administration would force this policy without amending the constitution, that would be the beginning of tyranny, that is a destruction of the rule of law," adding that if Japan supports the U.S. forces, it will become an enemy of terrorists and the country's finance will go bankrupt soon.
Meanwhile, referring to the Sunakawa judgment, Hasebe said that the case disrupted the constitutionality of the Japan-U.S. defense treaty which determines how the combination of Japan's individual self-defense and U.S. collective self-defense should protect Japan 's security.
"I think almost all constitutional scholars in Japan would support me in the Sunagawa case... and Japan's collective defense was not an issue at all in the case," Hasebe said and he strongly slashed LDP politicians as "lack basic knowledge of law."
"I don't believe that this security legislation would actually help secure the security of Japan. In fact, I fear that it might have the opposite effect to make Japan in a more dangerous position. (The government) should carefully listen to the opinions of scholars," Hasebe referred to Komura's comments last week that "if we had followed what they (constitutional experts) said, we wouldn't now have either the SDF nor the Japan-U.S. security treaty" and "it is highly doubtful that the peace and stability of Japan would have been maintained."
"The opinion of the experts must be treated with great respect and we must humbly take their advice...(but) the responsibility of protecting the Japanese people lies with the government. It is our responsibility to determine what the fundamental function of the shape of the Self-Defense Forces in international cooperation is and how the government views the Constitution," said Natsuo Yamaguchi, leader of Japan's Komeito Party, a junior coalition partner of the ruling LDP.
On late Monday, the TV Asahi released a poll which showed that only three out of 149 surveyed experts on Constitution said the security legislation is constitutional, with 98 percent of the country's constitutional scholars said that the bills are " unconstitutional."
Both Hasebe and Kobayashi urged the government to retract the unpopular bills. In the weekend, over 47,000 demonstrators rallied in Tokyo protesting against the security legislation and smaller protests will be held every week, according to organizers.
