The unanimous judgment by three scholars at a Lower House panel on constitutional issues last week that the Abe administration's package of security legislation is unconstitutional underlines the shaky legal foundation of the government's decision last year to reinterpret the war-renouncing Constitution to lift Japan's self-imposed ban on collective self-defense. The government insists otherwise, but the administration should realize that the views expressed by the constitutional scholars about the legislation are likely shared by a large portion of the public, as indicated by media opinion polls that show a majority of people continue to oppose the bills.
The Lower House deliberations on the security legislation have raised more questions about the bills than have been answered. Although the administration appears bent on pushing the bills through the Diet even by extending the current session through August, it should not use the majority strength of the ruling coalition to rush to a vote on the legislation given all those unanswered questions, including doubts over the very legal foundation of the bills.
The three experts, invited to speak at the June 4 session of the Lower House panel on constitutional issues, were clear in their denunciation of the security legislation — which consists of a bill to amend 10 existing laws and another to pave the way for overseas deployment of Self-Defense Forces on missions to provide logistical support for other forces engaged in international military operations.