List of Issues:

1. The "Proposed Law Concerning the Disclosure of Information Held By Government Agencies" (Proposed Information Disclosure Law), drafted by the Cabinet, has been still pending at the national parliament (Diet) as of September, 1998. The proposed Information Disclosure Law, however, only targets administrative agencies and does not target either the Diet or the courts.
   
   Does the government have any plans to propose an information disclosure law that targets the Diet and the courts? If so, when? If there are no plans for such a proposal, what are the reasons?
   
   
2. The proposed Information Disclosure Law targets only administrative agencies and does not target the Special Public Corporations (established by special laws to serve as instruments for state business enterprises) that actually do the work of the administrative agencies.
   
   Does the government have any plans to enact an information disclosure law that will target special corporations and that enables the courts to judge the correctness of decisions made by special corporations not to release information? If so, when will the government submit such a bill, and if not, what are the government's reasons?
   
   
3. The proposed Information Disclosure Law does not have specific provisions to decide which court will have jurisdiction should a suit be filed to reverse the decision not to release information made by the head of an administrative agency in response to a request for information. Because of this, according to the principles of the Administrative Litigation Act, and because in many cases the requested information is only available at the agencies' headquarters in Tokyo, almost any suit filed to reverse a decision not to release information will fall within the jurisdiction of the Tokyo District Court. This makes it virtually impossible for anyone outside of Tokyo to file a suit, and it places a restriction on the people's right to know and their right of access to the courts.
   
   Does the government have any plans to take any legislative measures to avoid this inconvenience by allowing requesters of information to file suit with their local court to reverse a decision not to disclose information? If yes, what types of measures, if no, for what reasons?

Background:

1. The "Proposed Law Concerning the Disclosure of Information Held By Government Agencies" (Proposed Information Disclosure Law) has been submitted to the National Parliament (Diet), but this law only targets administrative agencies and does not target either the Diet or the courts.
   
   Just as with the administrative agencies, there are official documents concerning administrative procedures at the courts and the Diet; an information disclosure law targeting such documents should be enacted in order to shed light on those administrative procedures. The government does not appear to have any plans to enact an information disclosure law that targets the Diet or the courts.
   
   
2. The proposed Information Disclosure Law targets only administrative agencies and does not target the Special Public Corporations that actually do the work of the administrative agencies.
   
   Regarding Special Public Corporations, the government's proposed law states that "legislative measures and other necessary measures regarding information disclosure shall be devised corresponding to the character and contents of their operations." (Government's proposed law article 41).
   
   As of January 1998, there were 85 different Special Public Corporations, including special banks, finance corporations, agencies, etc. But there is nothing in the provisions of the government's proposed law that guarantees that in the future a separate information disclosure law will be enacted targeting the special corporations. It is imperative that making special corporations a target of the information disclosure law not be put off to the future. A bad precedent can be found in Article 27 of the Act for Protection of Computer Processed Personal Data Held By Administrative Organs. In a manner similar to the proposed Information Disclosure Law, the law stipulates that "Special Public Corporations must diligently devise measures necessary to ensure the appropriate management of personal information." However, even now, 10 years after that law was enacted in 1988, there is no "Special Corporations Personal Information Protection Law," and there is no word of any explanation saying that other measures had been devised.
   
   Some time ago the Management and Coordination Agency completed an interim report by the committee to research information disclosure, but the record shows that after that, for five years, they did nothing more to initiate a system to develop an information disclosure law. Special Public Corporations are a final destination for retiring bureaucrats, they are a hotbed of wasteful government spending, and they are an example of how the transparency of Japan's government administration has not been secured. Japan's Information Disclosure Law will not be complete if the development of an information disclosure law for special corporations is put off to the future, and the record shows that there is a great chance that will, in fact, be the case.
   
   On the other hand, three of the opposition parties have proposed that Special Public Corporations be included as target agencies in the Information Disclosure Law. If they are stipulated to be targeted agencies it would be possible to have the courts judge the outcome if a request for disclosure is turned down. Even if the execution of the law as it regards Special Public Corporations is delayed, provisions should be established to make them into targeted agencies under the Information Disclosure Law.
   
   The USA, Denmark, France, and the Netherlands have all targeted government organizations under their laws. In South Korea, the disclosure law targets banks, public companies, and other agencies "in which the government has investments that account for over 50 percent of the organization's capital." A proposal was even made in a British white paper to target corporations that are connected to the government.
   
   The secretive management of special corporations where aging bureaucrats are paid to enjoy their retirement should not be neglected by putting off their inclusion as targeted agencies under the Information Disclosure Law.
   
   
3. Most government information is concentrated at the headquarters of the respective government agencies, and most of the agencies are headquartered in Tokyo. Therefore, according to the government's proposed Information Disclosure Law, and based upon the principles of the Administrative Litigation Act's article 12 section 1, when a decision of an agency not to release information is challenged in court the lawsuit will fall within the jurisdiction of the Tokyo District Court. It is clear that this makes it practically impossible for those living outside of Tokyo to bring a lawsuit to challenge an agency's decision not to release information. This is a virtual limitation on the right to know and the right to have access to the courts of those people who reside outside of Tokyo.
   
   The most important element of the Information Disclosure Law lies in the mechanism by which one may have an easy access to the courts to judge whether or not an agency's non-disclosure decision was correct. The government's proposed law comes under the control of the Management and Coordination Agency. And because of the influence of bureaucratic jurisdictional barriers and the Justice Ministry's diffidence towards the legislative committee, there was never any proposal to provide for jurisdictional rights outside of those provided for by existing law. Even so, the law does allow for exceptions to be made when a suit is filed to protest a government action (Administrative Litigation Act, article 12, section 2). Information disclosure suits should be treated in the same manner as kokoku appeal suits, establishing an exception to allow a choice of jurisdiction between the location where the official documents exist and the residence of the requester. The government's attitude on this point should be made clear.