Constitutional Scholars Have Been Corrupted by the Benefits of Defeat—A Scathing Indictment of the “August Revolution Theory” and the University of Tokyo Faculty of Law

April 16, 2026

A forceful indictment of how Japan’s postwar constitutional law establishment, particularly the scholars of the University of Tokyo Faculty of Law, built its authority within a structure that rewarded the beneficiaries of Japan’s defeat, and how constitutional interpretations founded upon falsehood were allowed to permeate the judiciary and the bureaucratic system.
Through Miyazawa Shun’yoshi’s “August Revolution Theory,” the Lockheed trial, and the denial of cross-examination, this essay questions the fundamental corruption of law and justice in postwar Japan.

June 2, 2019

We must never forget that the more eminent the constitutional scholars of institutions such as the University of Tokyo Faculty of Law are said to be, the more they are people who received a share of the benefits enjoyed by those who profited from Japan’s defeat, and therefore cannot be trusted.

The following is a continuation of the preceding chapter.
Constitutional scholars have been corrupted by the benefits of defeat
The professors of the University of Tokyo Faculty of Law should have continued saying the kinds of things I have been saying up to now.
However, if they had said such things, they would have been caught by the purge directive.
Therefore, Professor Miyazawa Shun’yoshi of the University of Tokyo Faculty of Law advocated the “August Revolution Theory.”
The August Revolution Theory is the doctrine that, through Japan’s acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration in August 1945, sovereignty was transferred from the Emperor to the people, and that the Constitution of Japan was enacted by the people, who had thereby become sovereign; it interpreted this transfer of sovereignty as a revolution in the legal sense.
The source of all these evils lies with Professor Miyazawa and his disciples.
Among them are pathological pacifists such as Nobuyoshi Ashibe, Professor Emeritus of the University of Tokyo, and Yoichi Higuchi, Professor Emeritus of the University of Tokyo.
What is frightening is that a constitution founded upon falsehood has become the basis of the thinking of the examiners who administer the bar examination and the civil-service examinations.
This has inflicted the greatest harm upon Japan.
In other words, falsehood became power.
I have personally experienced evidence that many constitutional scholars are frauds.
In the trial arising from the former Lockheed scandal, in which former Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka was the defendant, depositions were taken on commission from Kochian, vice chairman of the Lockheed Corporation, and Clutter, the former head of its Tokyo office.
I asked Takashi Tsutsumi, who was then editor-in-chief of the magazine Shokun!, “Were they allowed to cross-examine them?”
The editorial department of Shokun! then contacted the Tanaka office and asked, “Did you request cross-examination?”
The Tanaka office replied, “We requested cross-examination, but the court rejected the request.”
Article 37 of the Constitution clearly states that “the accused shall be permitted full opportunity to examine all witnesses” (underline by Watanabe).
In other words, the accused has the right to cross-examine.
The court rejected that right.
A written deposition that has not been subjected to cross-examination has no value.
Although it was inadequate, even the Tokyo Trial allowed cross-examination.
I wrote in Shokun!, “Is it not wrong to reject cross-examination?”
Tsutsumi told me, “I spoke with various public prosecutors, and they said this was the most painful criticism of all.”
However, neither at the trial of first instance nor on appeal was the argument that “is it not wrong to proceed without cross-examination?” accepted.
Only in the judgment handed down by the Supreme Court after Kakuei Tanaka’s death was it finally stated, in substance, that “this trial was conducted through improper procedures.”
The Supreme Court finally acknowledged that due process had not been followed.
In other words, the Supreme Court acknowledged that “this was not a proper trial.”
I debated Takashi Tachibana (Note 1) about this matter in the Asahi Journal, but Tachibana, who was acting as a mouthpiece for the prosecutors, never attempted to answer this point and instead evaded it and ran away.
Later, when I met Setsu Kobayashi, a professor of constitutional law at Keio University, Mr. Kobayashi said something to the effect that he respected me.
I wondered why a professor of constitutional law would have any reason to respect me, but then he told me the following.
When Mr. Kobayashi was an assistant at Keio University, there was a meeting of the Constitutional Law Association.
After the meeting, there was a second gathering attended by eminent scholars, and Professor Kobayashi, who was then an assistant, sat at the end of the table and listened to their conversation.
The eminent scholars said, “Regarding the Kakuei Tanaka trial, what a man named Shoichi Watanabe is saying is probably correct. However, because the person involved is Kakuei Tanaka, let us all remain silent.”
As he listened to this, he, then merely an assistant, became extremely indignant.
This is the level of Japan’s constitutional scholars after the defeat.
Sound constitutional scholars such as Akira Momochi and Osamu Nishi do not belong to the group extending from the University of Tokyo Faculty of Law that has been corrupted to the marrow of its bones by the benefits it has received.
We must never forget that the more eminent the constitutional scholars of institutions such as the University of Tokyo Faculty of Law are said to be, the more they are people who received a share of the benefits enjoyed by those who profited from Japan’s defeat, and therefore cannot be trusted.
(Note 1) Takashi Tachibana (1940–), journalist, nonfiction writer, and critic.
In 1974, “A Study of Kakuei Tanaka—His Financial Resources and Personal Connections,” published in the magazine Bungeishunju, caused a major public reaction and became the catalyst for Prime Minister Tanaka’s resignation.