On December 25, 2024, the first oral argument in the “State Funeral Document Concealment Trial” was held at the Tokyo District Court. The plaintiff, Tansa Editor-in-Chief Makoto Watanabe, made a statement for about 10 minutes. The full text is published below.

Full statement of opinion

Tansa is a newsroom that contributes to upholding democracy through the practice of journalism. As its representative, I would like to express my opinion.

Public opinion overwhelmingly opposed state funeral

First, I will explain why the document, which the defendant had decided not to disclose because he has not “obtained the record” or has “destroyed it,” is important.

In 2022, public opinion was divided over whether to hold a state funeral for former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, with more voices opposed than approved. Although the government decided to hold a state funeral by cabinet decision on July 22 of that year, many people did not support the decision.

Public opinion polls conducted by various major media organizations from August to September, the month following the Cabinet decision, produced the following results.

Kyodo News: 56% “not convinced,” 42.5% “convinced”

Mainichi Shimbun: 53% “opposed,” 30% “in favor”

Sankei Shimbun/FNN: 51.1% “opposed,” 40.8% “in favor”

Asahi Shimbun: 50% “opposed,” 41% “in favor”

Yomiuri Shimbun/NNN: 56% “not in favor,” 38% “in favor”

In addition, legal experts have also spoken out against a state funeral.

According to a statement released by 85 constitutional law scholars, “The government’s decision to hold a state funeral for former Prime Minister Abe is contrary to the Constitution of Japan.” Statements of disapproval were also released by the Tokyo Bar Association and other bar associations throughout the country.

 

The Importance of the Prime Minister’s Statement

Nevertheless, the government held a state funeral for former Prime Minister Abe at the Nippon Budokan in Tokyo on September 27, 2022, without even consulting the Diet.

Why did the government hold a state funeral based solely on a cabinet decision, when public opinion was divided down the middle?

The “only basis” was the consultation held over three days from July 12 to 14, 2022 between the First Division of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, the Cabinet Affairs Office of Cabinet Secretariat, and the Minister’s Secretariat of Cabinet Office’s General Affairs Division. Then-Prime Minister Fumio Kishida stated at a press conference and in the Diet that this consultation supported the implementation of the state funeral through a cabinet decision.

For example, at a press conference on July 14, Prime Minister Kishida said the following about holding a state funeral by cabinet decision:

“We are making the decision after thoroughly coordinating with the Cabinet Legislation Bureau. In this way, the government has determined that a state funeral can be held based on the cabinet decision.” (Exhibit  2, Paragraph 11)

In the Diet, at the House of Representatives Committee on Rules and Administration on September 8, Prime Minister Kishida responded, “After thoroughly checking with the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, we made this decision based on the judgment that the government was able to make the decision.” (Exhibit 24, Paragraph 8)

The head of the Japanese government stated at a press conference, which responds to the public’s right to know, and to the Diet, the highest organ of state power, that discussions with the Cabinet Legislation Bureau were the basis of the Cabinet decision to hold a state funeral.

The defendant claims that the records of the discussions were not created or were destroyed, as they “had no influence on the decision-making in question.” However, this is tantamount to saying “the Prime Minister lied.”

 

Contradicts the current Prime Minister’s opinion

The current Prime Minister, Shigeru Ishiba, must be aware of the importance of the records of the cabinet decision to hold a state funeral. The following is a quote from Ishiba’s official blog dated September 9, 2022.

When former Prime Minister Eisaku Sato passed away in the early hours of June 3, 1975, then-Director-General of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau Ichiro Yoshikuni, who was present at a hastily convened government and LDP summit at 8:00 a.m. that same morning, was reported to have said, “Agreement is needed between the judicial, legislative and executive branches” (Nikkei Shimbun evening edition that same day).

Since the Japan Socialist Party, the largest opposition party at the time, was opposed to a state funeral, the funeral of former Prime Minister Sato was not a state funeral, but rather a “national funeral” organized by the government, the LDP, and the business world, with the expenses shared. I find this statement by Director General Yoshikuni more persuasive.

Under the old Constitution, state funerals based on the “State Funeral Order” were bestowed by the Emperor, who was the sole sovereign, and therefore there was absolutely no legal room for objection to the decision. However, since the sovereign has become the people under the current Constitution, I believe that in the future when holding a state funeral, the “will of the people” must be expressed.

It is probably impossible to determine the criteria for “who should have a state funeral,” but it is crucial that the “will of the people, who are the sovereign,” is expressed in the process of reaching a decision. And for that to happen, a resolution must first be passed by the Diet, which is positioned as the “highest organ of state power” under the Constitution and comprised of members representing all the people. After a resolution is passed by both houses, the Cabinet (Prime Minister), whose opinion is sought, will express that it has no objections to the resolution.

A week later on September 16th, Ishiba again made reference to the state funeral in a blog post, stating the essence of democracy as “the establishment of procedures that lead to decision-making.”

The fact that not only was it not passed through the Diet, but that even the records showing the process leading to the cabinet decision is “non-existence” is in stark contradiction to Prime Minister Ishiba’s opinion.

 

Reports based on memory are not possible

Next, I will explain how absurd the defendant’s claim that the discussions were not recorded is.

According to the Cabinet Legislation Bureau’s reception record (Exhibit 5), the three-day discussions were attended by the Cabinet Legislation Bureau’s Counselor Norikoshi and Assistant Director of Counselor Morishita, as well as officials from the Cabinet Affairs Office of Cabinet Secretariat and the Minister’s Secretariat of Cabinet Office’s General Affairs Division.

Imagine a meeting. Did the attendees talk for three days without taking any notes? Or did they just face each other in silence, so there was no need to take notes?

In addition, the notes section of the reception record states, “Consulted with Director General Kondo, Deputy Director General Iwao, and First Division Chief Kimura.” Did Counselor Norikoshi and Assistant Director of Counselor Morishita report the contents of the discussion from memory when reporting to their superiors?

The officials from the Cabinet Affairs Office of Cabinet Secretariat and the Minister’s Secretariat of Cabinet Office’s General Affairs Division must have reported to the relevant parties, and these reports must have been passed on to Prime Minister Kishida. Were these also based on memory?

 

The information disclosure system is the foundation of democracy

The foundation of democracy is keeping records and making them available for review by all members of society. Article 3 of the Freedom of Information Act additionally states that “any person may request” regarding those with the right to disclosure. It is a system that welcomes anyone who wants to help improve Japanese society, regardless of citizenship or age.

Article 1 of the Freedom of Information Act states the purpose of the law as follows:

The purpose of this Act is, in accordance with the principle of sovereignty of the people, and by providing for the right to request the disclosure of administrative documents, etc., to endeavor towards greater disclosure of information held by administrative organs thereby ensuring to achieve accountability of the Government to the citizens for its various activities, and to contribute to the promotion of a fair and democratic administration that is subject to the citizens’ appropriate understanding and criticism.

It is not our intention to question whether there should have been a state funeral or not; rather, we want to put the brakes on dysfunction in democracy. This is because, in recent years, the government has widely concealed and falsified public documents, in addition to state funeral paperwork.

I’ll end my remarks by expressing my fervent hope that the judiciary, which is crucial to Japan’s democracy, would order the executive branch to alter its stance on information disclosure.

Next hearing: March 12 at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom No. 522 of the Tokyo District Court

The next hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 12, 2025 at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom 522 of the Tokyo District Court. Please arrive early as many people are expected to attend.

The complaint and evidentiary documents for this trial will be made public in due course on “CALL4,” a platform that supports public litigation.

Tansa has launched an online petition to convey the voice of public anger against the government for its disregard for the information disclosure system, which is the basis of democracy. You can sign the petition here.

We are also seeking support for this trial and for reporting on it. Any support received will be used to cover the costs of the information disclosure procedures, administrative costs and personnel expenses for the trial, which is expected to be long.

(Originally published in Japanese on December 25, 2024. Translation by Mana Shibata.)

Democracy Behind Closed Doors: All articles