The Abe government declared in 2013 to cut budgets for life protection scheme by approximately 67 billion Yen in three years. Since then it has been implementing the policy steadily. Recently the Nagoya District Court gave a ruling to a legal case which claims that it is violation of the Constitution for the authority to reduce life protection benefits by an average rate of 6.5%. The court decision, however, is fully illegitimate.

COURT RULING ENDORSES VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 25 OF CONSTITUTION

Abnormal bashing

In Spring of 2012, when the currently opposition party, the Democratic Party of Japan, was the government, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), using two members of the Upper House, accused harshly a recipient of the life protection program, a mother of a comedian, of her unjust eligibility, though, in fact, it was legitimate. The two were Members of Councilors Seko Hiroshige and Katayama Satsuki, who held grandiose campaign, mobilizing mass media, against recipients of the social service program.

In the December general election of that same year, the LDP won, with a pledge to scale down the benefits of life protection scheme by 10% as a concrete policy to overhaul the social welfare plans. The LDP recovered the government status, which was led by Prime Minister Abe Shinzo. The new administration, however, before final decisions were made by the Workshop on Life Protection Standard of the Social Service Panel, implemented its policy to cut benefits, disregarding the on-going discussions in the panel.

Recipients are angry enough to rise up

Beneficiaries of the social program, with assistance of their supporting groups, sued a legal case, insisting that the budget cut violates the Constitution and relevant laws. It was a collective litigation, which is rare in the social welfare proceedings, organizing about 900 plaintiffs and suing at 20 district courts across the country. The first court ruling was issued June 25 at the Nagoya District Court (led by Presiding Judge Kakutani Masatake).

Who sets benefit amount?

Problems have been pointed out on the way how to set a benefit amount; a simple announcement is all right by Minister of Health, Labor and Social Welfare on the government newsletter. No parliamentary debates are requested. It is only a bureaucratic decision of the Ministry.

The bureaucratic decision, however, has a binding force as a concrete step to endorse Article 25 of the Constitution, which says about the right to lead a minimum level of healthy and cultural life. Another problem lies in a fact that the Ministry itself has ignored opinions presented by the panel on life protection service, which is established by the same ministry. What is a role of the panel?

A budget cut responds to people’s sentiment?

The recent Nagoya court ruling says that ‘no legal provision is found that obligates experts’ consultation when procedures are taken to reduce the benefit level’ and continues that due to a price-down trend in the society in general ‘the norms to sustain the life standard have substantially been heightened’. Logic of the court is the same as that of the central government.

Furthermore, when the plaintiffs pointed that ‘the norms to guarantee the life standard should be estimated by the valid basic statistics, not by a political intention’, the court says that ‘the LDP’S policy depended on people’s feeling and financial conditions of those days’. That means the court ruling endorses that the government is allowed to disrespect Article 25 of the constitution that guarantees the national minimum principle. The court has issued an exceptionally irrational decision.

July 28, 2020