On February 25, the Chair of the DPJ General Research Committee on the Constitution, Yukio Edano, issued the following statement.

Prime Minister Abe has been making comments to the effect that he himself, as chief executive, is able to make decisions regarding changes in the interpretation of the Constitution. This position is receiving severe criticism from the perspective of constitutionalism from various sources, including myself.

A certain portion of the media has been attacking comments made by myself and the DPJ, saying that they are at odds with the position we took while the party was in government, when we stated that interpretation of the Constitution should be undertaken by the Cabinet. However, these media criticisms are deliberately confusing the question of “who is in charge of this issue within the government?” with the question of “what degree of control does that person or persons in charge have over interpretations of the Constitution?” and are not in keeping with the facts of the matter.

Certainly, when the DPJ was in government, we took the stance that “with regard to interpretations of the Constitution by the government”, “the Cabinet would take responsibility for carrying these out” (remarks by then Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama in the Committee on Budget in the House of Representatives, on 2 November, 2009), and established the post of state minister responsible for legal interpretations, occupants of which included myself.

However, we simply stated regarding “interpretations of the Constitution by the government” that these should take place within the Cabinet, and definitely never made any particular reference to “changes of interpretations of the Constitution by the government”. We made statements to the effect that the responsibility for carrying out interpretations within the government should be given to the Cabinet composed of politicians, centring on the state minister responsible for legal interpretations, and not to the Cabinet Legislation Bureau. These referred purely to the issue of where within the government the responsibility and control for this issue belongs. We never stated that interpretations could be freely changed, whether those be interpretations made by the Cabinet itself or by the Cabinet Legislation Bureau.

Rather, the DPJ government clearly stated that “Making arbitrary changes to the interpretation of the Constitution just because there has been a change of government is something that must never happen, something unforgiveable.” (Remarks by Yukio Edano, then State Minister, in the Committee on Cabinet in the House of Councillors on 16 March 2010). A certain portion of the media has quoted me out of context, as saying, “There may be room for making changes if past interpretations and decisions are mistaken”, but this is one part of my remarks, which are as follows “I believe that we should at least leave room for manoeuvre, and room for making changes if there are mistakes in past interpretations and decisions, but basically it is impossible to conceive of changing the interpretation of the Constitution arbitrarily.” (From the aforementioned speech to the Committee on Cabinet). Here, I categorically deny that the Cabinet can take responsibility for arbitrarily changing past interpretations of the Constitution.

This is not just limited to the Constitution, but new legal interpretations are always becoming necessary in response to new circumstances that have arisen and new points of contention that have come to light. It is always the Cabinet, never the Cabinet Legislative Bureau, which has authority and responsibility for such matters within the government. However, this doesn’t mean that the Cabinet can ignore the accumulated history of past interpretations and freely change interpretations. This is the view of the DPJ and a natural interpretation from the perspective of constitutionalism.

In contrast, the remarks of Prime Minister Abe which have been causing controversy, made in response to a question by [the DPJ’s] Hiroshi Ogushi in the Committee on Budget on 12 February 2014, are not comments which refer to the whereabouts of authority and responsibility within the administration.
Ogushi’s questioning consistently related to the comments made in the Diet by Abe on 5 February, in which the Prime Minister seemed to accept there was room for “making it possible to exercise the collective right to self-defence through the government’s interpretation [of the Constitution] rather than by revision of the Constitution.” In other words these remarks took place within an exchange regarding the question of whether there was room for the government to change the interpretation of the Constitution.

The question immediately preceding Prime Minister Abe’s answer was as follows: “[Mr Prime Minister, you have said that] it would be possible to exercise the collective right to self-defence by having the government clearly set forth an interpretation of the Constitution in the required manner, and that comments stating that revision of the Constitution is required may not necessarily be correct. I would like to ask whether you made these remarks as something of fresh significance.” In response, Abe stated, “I am the chief executive. I am the person in charge, and the one taking responsibility for the government’s response. Moreover, we are the ones who will be subject to the people’s verdict at the ballot box. It is I, not the Director-General of the Cabinet Legislative Bureau, who will be subject to the people’s verdict.”

Looking at this, and taking into account the background behind the question and the content of the question itself, it is only natural to understand the Prime Minister to have replied to the effect that “The Prime Minister is the chief executive, and subject to the verdict of the people at the ballot box, therefore I can freely carry out changes in the interpretation of the Constitution on my own authority and responsibility.” It is difficult to interpret this as a response limiting itself to the question of where power lies within the government: the Cabinet or the Cabinet Legislative Bureau. That is the reason why others apart from I myself and the DPJ are criticizing these as problematic remarks which stray from the path of constitutionalism and the rule of law.

In any event, the criticisms of me and the DPJ coming from a portion of the media have an ulterior motive, and deliberately confuse the issue of where authority lies within the government with the issue of to what degree it is possible for the government to change interpretations, and I would like to unequivocally refute such criticisms.