Amid the coronavirus pandemic, Japan’s Diet should be seriously debating the effectiveness of emergency declarations, restrictions on movement, and constitutional emergency provisions. Yet opposition parties such as the Constitutional Democratic Party refuse to convene the constitutional review commissions, claiming that “coronavirus measures” take priority. Based on Sankei Sho, this article criticizes that contradiction.

April 5, 2020
They seriously insist that the debate on effective measures to deal with the coronavirus crisis should not be held until the coronavirus crisis has subsided.
Since ancient times, people like this have been called tax thieves.
The following is from yesterday’s Sankei Sho.
The number of people infected with the novel coronavirus has exceeded one million worldwide.
The death toll has also risen above 50,000, yet there is still no prospect of containment or an end to the crisis.
We are now, without question, in the midst of a disaster that will go down in history.
And yet, I feel a chilling fear at the Diet’s astonishing lack of awareness of the crisis.
In Diet questioning, the focus has been placed on when Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will issue a state of emergency declaration under the revised Act on Special Measures for Novel Influenza and New Infectious Diseases Preparedness and Response.
There are concerns that it could lead to restrictions on private rights.
But in fact, what can be done is limited, and even within the government there is a view that “nothing will change even if the declaration is issued,” according to people close to the prime minister.
It is said that the most effective measure against infectious diseases is to restrict the movement of people.
However, what can be done under the special measures law is merely to “request” people not to go out unnecessarily.
That is something already being done at present.
It resembles similar declarations in other countries only in name.
Its substance is entirely different.
Of course, the declaration may have a certain tightening effect.
But it cannot provide a fundamental solution.
Why is this so?
It is surely because the Constitution has no emergency provisions.
On the first of the month, former Senior Vice Defense Minister Akihisa Nagashima wrote on Twitter:
“In order to make legislation possible that restricts private rights, even temporarily, there must be a constitutional provision that provides the basis for it.”
Whether one agrees or disagrees, this is naturally a theme that should be debated in the constitutional review commissions of both the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors.
And yet, incredibly, in the current Diet session, neither the review commissions themselves nor even the informal directors’ meetings to discuss the schedule for convening them have been held even once.
This is because opposition parties such as the Constitutional Democratic Party are opposed to holding them.
But the reason they give leaves one speechless.
“We cannot agree because there are coronavirus countermeasures to deal with.”
They seriously insist that the debate on effective measures to deal with the coronavirus crisis should not be held until the coronavirus crisis has subsided.
Since ancient times, people like this have been called tax thieves.