“The Law Concerning the Disclosure of Information Held by Administrative Organs” (Information Disclosure Act) was adopted by the Lower House of the Parliament on 7 May 1999. It has been 20 years since the JCLU proposed the Information Disclosure Bill Outline. The JCLU made an official statement on May 7, looking back on the development of the movement demanding enactment of an information disclosure law, noting the achievement of, and the problems with, the Information Disclosure Act.
The JCLU’s Information Disclosure Bill Outline (referred to below as the “Outline”) was announced in September, 1979, and the nonprofit organization ,“Citizen’s Movement for an Information Disclosure Act” (referred to below as “Citizen’s Movement”) was founded in 1980. Bills based on the JCLU’s Outline were submitted to the Diet in 1980 by the Democratic Socialist Party; in 1981 by the Japan Communist Party and (in a joint proposal) by the Socialist Party, the Clean Government Party, the New Liberal Club, and the Social Democratic League; and in 1985 by the Socialist Party.
The Model Information Disclosure Ordinance drafted by the JCLU in 1981 spelled out the citizen’s “right to know” in one of its provisions. Influenced by the JCLU Model Ordinance, the Kanbara-cho Information Disclosure Ordinance, the second ordinance in Japan, also spelled out the “right to know.” Kasuga-shi, Kawasaki-shi, and Osaka Prefecture also followed the JCLU Model Ordinance and spelled out the “right to know.” Article 1 of the 1985 Socialist Party bill spelled out “the right to know” as well. It has become common knowledge that the Information Disclosure Law realizes the people’s “right to know.”
The JCLU and “Citizen’s Movement” cooperatively studied implementation of information disclosure ordinances by pioneering local governments and proposed the Model Information Disclosure Law. The 1989 Clean Government Party bill reflected the Model and six opposition parties (Socialist Party, Clean Government Party, Japan New Party, Democratic Reform Party, and Democratic Socialist League) from the Upper House submitted a joint bill to the Diet in July of 1993. All of the bills submitted by the opposition parties were rejected, however, by the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).
After the 1993 Lower House election destroyed one-party control by the LDP in the Diet, the Administrative Reform Committee Law established the Administrative Reform Committee and the Government Information Disclosure Subcommittee and provided that the Committee draft an information disclosure bill within two years. It was in November 1996 that the Government Information Disclosure Subcommittee announced the final report on the information disclosure bill. Based on the final report, the Administrative Reform Committee suggested Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto that the government should enact its information disclosure bill. The opposition parties also submitted their bills to the Diet: one was the Japan Communist Party bill in October of 1997, and the other was a joint bill by the New Frontier Party, the Democratic Party, and the Taiyo Party.
The LDP, Socialist Party and Sakigake Party, the majority coalition parties at the time, deliberated and submitted the government bill to the Diet on March 28, 1998. Not long after, the LDP was soundly defeated in the election of July 1998. As a result, a desire to amend the government bill grew among the member of the Parliament as well as the people.
On February 10, 1999, a public hearing demanding early enactment of a superior Information Disclosure Act was held in the Lower House Chamber under the joint sponsorship of the “Citizen’s Movement,” “The Citizen Network for Early Enactment of an Information Disclosure Act,” and the “Kansai Right to Know Network.” After the public hearing, the Lower House amended the joint revised bill to provide that (in the second section of Article 16) “in determining the amount of the fees for disclosure requests and the implementation, consideration shall be given to see that it is as affordable as possible.” The amendment also changed Article 36, which concerns lawsuits demanding the revocation of a disclosure, so that cases may be brought before the district court under the eight high courts (Sapporo, Sendai, Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, Hiroshima, Takamatsu, and Fukuoka) that have jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s general forum. In addition to the above amendments, two supplementary provisions were added to the bill. Approximately two years after promulgation, the government shall take the legislative measures concerning information disclosure by public corporations (second section of supplementary provisions), and approximately four years after the law comes into effect the government shall examine the state of enforcement of the law and shall take necessary measures based upon those results (third section of supplementary provisions). The Lower House passed a supplementary resolution that the government shall specify the right to know in the Act.
This revised bill was passed in a plenary session of the Lower House on February 16. In the Upper House the opposition parties demanded that, in addition to the district courts that have jurisdiction over the seats of any of the eight high courts, cases may be brought before Naha District Court in Okinawa Prefecture. The Democratic Party proposed the revised bill. The ruling coalition parties (the LDP and the Liberal Party) made a counterproposal to amend the third section of the supplementary provisions to the effect that the government shall examine not only the state of enforcement of this law but also the manner of jurisdiction for information disclosure. Both ruling and opposition parties agreed to this proposal.
On April 27, the ruling and opposition parties in the General Affairs Committee of the Upper House jointly amended the third section of the supplementary provisions of the Information Disclosure Act and the Act was passed by a unanimous vote. The General Affairs Committee passed a supplementary resolution that the fee for a disclosure request shall be a fixed amount per disclosure request, that closely related documents shall be considered collectively to amount to one disclosure request, and that the fee for implementation of disclosure shall depend on the method of implementation so that, in practice, an amount equivalent to the amount of the disclosure request fee would be deducted from the implementation fee.
With the amendment of the third section of the supplementary provisions, the revised Information Disclosure Act was passed in a plenary session of the Lower House on May 7, 1999.
The JCLU officially announced that it welcomed the Information Disclosure Act and that there were still some problems to be discussed. The movement has shifted from "enactment" to "application." A movement to make the best use of the Information Disclosure Act is what now is required. <heading 3>Statement on the amendment of National Archive Act
With the passage of the Information Disclosure Act in the Lower House, the National Archive bill passed unanimously in the Lower House and was sent to the Upper House.
This bill regulates the handling of historical documents that are excluded by cabinet order from the scope of disclosure requests under the Information Disclosure Act. This bill, however, has no provisions on the right to request disclosure, the obligation of the National Archive to disclose documents, appeals to disclosure decisions, and the copying of documents. It lacks the basic principle of disclosure of public documents.
The JCLU made a statement in favor of amending this bill together with the May 7 statement on the Information Disclosure Act. The JCLU demanded that the Lower House respect the purpose of the Information Disclosure Act, apply disclosure to documents that are not in use even more strongly than for those that are, amend the bill so that the rules of the Information Disclosure Act apply to cases in the bill, and spell out the right to request disclosure.