Diet members’ terms could be extended under an emergency clause of the Constitution proposed by the Lower House secretariat, which will serve as the basis for amendment discussions at the chamber’s Commission on the Constitution.
The proposed provisions would allow for extending the terms if emergencies such as a large-scale natural disaster or a widespread infectious disease outbreak make it difficult to hold elections.
The draft, described as a “conceptual proposal,” was presented in a closed-door informal meeting of the commission’s directors on May 12.
Representatives from ruling and opposition parties are scheduled to discuss it at the commission’s meeting on May 14.
The draft, prepared by the Lower House Legislative Bureau and the commission’s secretariat, outlines the proposed amendment items in the form of draft articles.
The emergency clause is a focal point in constitutional amendment debates at the Lower House Commission on the Constitution.
The draft cited four examples of emergency situations: large-scale natural disasters; widespread outbreaks of infectious diseases; disruptions to social order due to civil unrest or similar events; and armed attacks from outside.
The Cabinet would be authorized to declare an “election difficulty situation,” subject to prior approval by the Diet.
The situation is defined as a case where “it is clear that the proper staging of national elections is difficult over a considerable period across broad areas.”
The Constitution currently provides for the convening of an emergency session of the Upper House on a provisional basis when the Lower House has been dissolved.
Under the envisaged election difficulty situation, however, the terms of Diet members could be extended instead.
The draft did not specify the duration of such situations or set a maximum limit on term extensions.
The Lower House secretariat’s draft provisions also incorporated measures to strengthen the government’s authority if the Diet becomes dysfunctional during an emergency.
Specifically, it stipulated that the Cabinet may issue “emergency orders” legally equivalent to laws when there are special circumstances in which “it is recognized that there is no time to wait for the Diet to enact laws.”
While the draft required subsequent approval by the Diet for emergency orders, it did not set a concrete deadline for obtaining such approval.
Opposition parties remain wary about the introduction of emergency Cabinet orders.
The draft therefore appended dissenting views, including the argument that such measures are unnecessary as responses should be handled under individual statutes.
(This article was written by Hayato Jinno and Ryutaro Abe.)
Discover more from PressNewsAgency
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.