The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected an appeal by a man demanding reimbursement of his health insurance premiums who claimed the manner in which his city collected the fees was unconstitutional.
In a unanimous opinion, the 15 justices on the Grand Bench ruled against Masaaki Sugio, 70, from Asahikawa, Hokkaido, saying the court found nothing illegal or unconstitutional about the way in which the city of Asahikawa collected the health insurance fees.
Sugio filed a series of lawsuits, beginning in 1995, after his request for a reduction in premiums for economic reasons was denied by the city on grounds that certain "conditions were not met." He had demanded reimbursement for fiscal 1994 through 1996.
He had argued it was unconstitutional for the city to charge the premiums without stating the rates in a municipal ordinance. Asahikawa's ordinance gives the methods of how to compute premiums but not exact rates.
The Constitution states that conditions must be set in law to impose or modify taxes. The provision is designed to protect people from arbitrary taxation by the government.
The Grand Bench said the health-care premiums are similar to taxes because enrollment and payment is mandatory. However, the justices ruled the ordinance was clear enough.
"The city of Asahikawa clearly stipulated (the methods of premium calculation in) an ordinance and the method of collection, and there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it."