The Lower House passed an information disclosure bill into a law today.
It was twenty years ago that the Japan Civil Liberties Union (JCLU) formulated the nation's first draft law in 1979, titled the Outline of the Information Disclosure Law. In later years, the JCLU has also issued "A Model Information Disclosure Ordinance"and“JCLU Model-Outline of the Information Disclosure Law."
The JCLU has consistently and strongly advocated for the creation of the information disclosure system that provides any person with a right to request and judicial review of nondisclosure. Therefore, the JCLU welcomes that both the Upper and Lower Houses gave full considerations and brought about such an information disclosure system. The JCLU also pays tribute to information disclosure advocates for their tireless endeavors for legislation, and is determined to take further actions to make the full use of the new law as "the currency of democracy."
The new law, however, has several problems. Whether or not a plaintiff can file a lawsuit with a local court had been of controversy until the last stage. The new law inconveniences residents of Okinawa and of some prefectures on the Japan Sea area as they can file a lawsuit only with a district court in a remote city where a high court is. It is problematic in light of the right to trial. As is stated in Paragraph 3 of the Annexed Regulation of the new law, this issue should be prioritized in reviewing the law four years after the enforcement.
The amount of handling charge is unclear as Article 16, paragraph 2 of the law merely states "the amount regulated by a Cabinet Order." The JCLU continues to hope for a formulation of a Cabinet Order that stipulate the handling charge "the utmost affordable amount" as stated in Article 16, paragraph 2 of the law and a supplementary resolution of both Houses.
It is said that information disclosure and file management are like the two wheels of a cart. The JCLU strongly calls for a Cabinet Order be formulated which obligate fair file management so as to avoid arbitrary destruction or deletion of documents or neglect of entry into a file management list on the grounds of protection of secrecy.
Upon the principle of openness of information, the information disclosure act should be applied with strict limitations on information to be withdrawn. In this respect, both the Lower and Upper Houses have adopted incidental resolutions to the effect that the judgement of (non-)disclosure should be accompanied by appropriate measures such as the formulation and publicity of review standard as well as explicit presentation of the rationale of non-disclosure decision.
We also should be attentive to interpretation of non-disclosing information, on such occasion as: excessive withdrawal of private information by with an excuse of protection of privacy; misuse or abuse of provisions on non-disclosure of discretionary voluntarily submitted information and on grants to refusal to confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence of records; whether or not the non-disclosure provision on defense/diplomatic and investigative or security records that are allowed where “the head of the administrative organ has reasonable grounds” be applied in the way not to bound the appeal review board or the court.
Also, it should be examined whether or not victims of criminal offenses suffer inconvenience in receiving remedies as the informati on disclosure law is not applicable to the records of criminal litigation.
In addition, it is essential to formulate appropriate board members and a strong secretariat to support them to establish the effective appeal review board that examines non-disclosure decisions.
The JCLU strongly calls for an early enforcement of the information disclosure law standing firmly on the principle of openness, with continuous examination of the issues raised above.