March 10, 2020. The spread of the novel pneumonia exposed the serious flaw that Japan’s legal system and Constitution do not assume emergencies. The reality that individual rights override public welfare, preventing the government and prime minister from acting swiftly in a crisis, shows the necessity of constitutional revision and an emergency clause.

March 10, 2020
Beginning with the Preamble itself, it is based on the idea that “there are only kind people in the world, and as long as Japan does nothing wrong and simply remains still, the world will be peaceful.”
The following is from an essay by Ruri Abiru, one of the best reporters currently active, published in the monthly magazine WiLL now on sale under the title, In This Emergency, What Are We Doing Letting the Public Bow Down Before Human Rights!
Is it acceptable to put “human rights above human life”? The constitutional limits that a national crisis has thrust upon peace-dulled Japan
Japan is weak in a crisis
In the face of the spread of the novel pneumonia, the limits of our country are being exposed in broad daylight.
Until now, Japan has created laws each time after something has happened.
For example, the Basic Act on Disaster Management after the Ise Bay Typhoon, and the Act on Special Measures Concerning Nuclear Emergency Preparedness after the Tokaimura criticality accident.
For that reason, when faced with situations not envisioned by law, such as the hijacking incidents by the Red Army Faction, Japan panicked.
In the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake and the Great East Japan Earthquake, the civil-law concept of “ownership” delayed the removal of vehicles and rubble and hindered smooth rescue operations.
Japan’s legal system, just like its Constitution, does not assume emergencies.
Even more sadly, it is also true that our country cannot even properly operate the laws that already exist.
The Tomiichi Murayama administration could not apply the Subversive Activities Prevention Act to Aum Shinrikyo even after the Tokyo subway sarin attack occurred.
In the Fukushima nuclear accident, the Naoto Kan administration also took time to issue a nuclear emergency declaration because it prioritized domestic political maneuvering.
The current refusal of entry on the basis of having stayed in specific regions such as Hubei Province, where Wuhan is located, and Zhejiang Province, is the first such case.
It took the form of the Prime Minister’s Office somehow maneuvering through the Immigration Control Act and forcing its application, but at first, the Ministry of Justice is said to have shown reluctance, saying that “there is no legal basis.”
There are limits to legal interpretation.
If laws had been made assuming a situation such as the spread of an infectious disease, the prime minister and the Prime Minister’s Office should have been able to move more quickly and cast a wider net of entry restrictions.
Two people who returned from Wuhan on a government-chartered plane refused virus testing, saying that they did not fall under the government’s testing criteria.
Prime Minister Abe had no choice but to say that “there is no legal binding force,” but is that really acceptable?
Article 12 of the Constitution clearly states the idea that even basic human rights may be restricted for the sake of “public welfare.”
Nevertheless, public welfare bowed down before human rights.
The peace-dulled Constitution
In addition to war, nuclear accidents, and natural disasters such as typhoons and earthquakes, a new “merciless” situation called infectious disease has now appeared before our eyes.
Japanese people have already died from the novel pneumonia.
We do not know how violently it will rage from now on.
There are even whispers that President Xi Jinping’s visit to Japan may be cancelled, but we cannot simply rejoice.
The fact that the situation is that serious means that it may also become the trigger for the next emergency, a global recession.
For the Japanese economy, which has just had the consumption tax raised, this is naturally a serious problem.
It is important to build up legal grounds after something has happened, based on reflection.
But in preparation for situations that cannot be prescribed in detail by law, a broad constitutional framework is needed that concentrates authority in the government and the prime minister.
In the end, the greatest problem is that the Constitution of Japan does not assume emergencies.
Beginning with the Preamble itself, it is based on the idea that “there are only kind people in the world, and as long as Japan does nothing wrong and simply remains still, the world will be peaceful.”
It is therefore natural that voices should arise from the Liberal Democratic Party and some media outlets calling for the necessity of including an emergency clause in the Constitution.
Under the current situation, in order to protect the lives of the people, the government must sometimes order extralegal measures, that is, violations of the law.
If authority is allowed to be concentrated halfway without an emergency clause, that would itself be contrary to “constitutionalism.”
In Japan, there is a belief in the spirit of words, that “what one says aloud will become true.”
During the Junichiro Koizumi administration, when Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe, as he then was, was talking inside the Prime Minister’s Office about a simulation of a contingency involving North Korea, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda, as he then was, stopped him, saying, “If you put such a thing into words, it will become true, so do not say it.”
Even the core of the administration is trapped by an unscientific belief in the spirit of words.
This essay continues.