Overview of the Document
Document title:
Petition Requesting an Examination of the Constitutional Issues Arising from the Resignation Recommendation Resolutions Adopted in Fiscal Year 2011 and the Implementation of Corrective Measures, together with the Receipt
Date:
April 3, 2025
Prepared by:
Toshio Tsumuraya
Submitted to:
Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council
Document type:
Petition and receipt
Method of acquisition:
A copy retained by the petitioner after submission to the Sukagawa City Council
Publication format:
PDF files with personal information redacted where necessary
Original Japanese petition PDF:
Receipt issued upon submission:
Skip to PDF contentFacts Confirmed by the Document
This document consists of a petition submitted to the Chairperson of the Sukagawa City Council on April 3, 2025, together with a receipt showing that the Council received the petition on the same date.
The receipt states that one copy of the petition was submitted and bears a receipt stamp indicating that it was received by the Sukagawa City Council.
The title recorded on the receipt is:
Petition Requesting an Examination of the Constitutional Issues Arising from the Resignation Recommendation Resolutions Adopted in Fiscal Year 2011 and the Implementation of Corrective Measures
The receipt also records the existence of an attached document titled:
Constitutional Issues Viewed from the Principles of the Supremacy of Law and the Reservation of Law
The petition addresses four resignation recommendation resolutions adopted between 2011 and 2012. It requests an independent examination of their contents, the procedures by which they were adopted, and their possible effects on the related criminal proceedings.
The petition asks the Sukagawa City Council to take the following measures:
Conduct an independent investigation and examination through a third-party body concerning the contents of the resignation recommendation resolutions, the processes by which they were adopted, and their possible effects on the related criminal case, and publish the results.
Based on the results of that examination, withdraw the resolutions, issue apologies through the relevant parties, and implement corrective measures.
Establish and formalize standards and operational guidelines requiring due process, respect for human rights, and constitutional compliance before similar resolutions are adopted in the future.
Key Statements
1. Due Process
The petition states that the first resignation recommendation resolution was adopted while the petitioner was under arrest and detention and had no practical opportunity to present an explanation or rebuttal.
It argues that the Council made a unilateral judgment and took an action capable of seriously affecting the petitioner’s status as an elected representative, personal reputation, and political credibility without providing an adequate opportunity to be heard.
2. Presumption of Innocence
The petition states that the resignation recommendation resolutions were adopted before criminal responsibility had been finally determined.
It argues that a public institution should not issue an accusatory assessment that effectively treats an accused person as guilty before the completion of the criminal proceedings.
It further argues that a public body’s premature assessment of guilt raises questions not only about the presumption of innocence but also about the proper constitutional role of the judiciary.
3. Personal Dignity, Reputation, and Political Status
The petition states that the resolutions caused serious social consequences and adversely affected the petitioner’s reputation, professional credibility, and political status.
It argues that these consequences must be examined in light of the constitutional protection of individual dignity and personal rights.
4. The Will of the Electorate
The petition states that members of a local assembly are chosen directly by the residents.
It asks whether repeatedly recommending the resignation of a duly elected incumbent is consistent with the will expressed by voters through an election.
5. Four Resignation Recommendation Resolutions
The petition points out that the resignation recommendation resolution was not adopted only once. It was repeated four times.
It argues that the cumulative effect of these resolutions amounted to institutional and political pressure.
6. Possible Effects on Public Reporting and the Criminal Proceedings
The petition states that the resolutions contributed to intensified media reporting and the rapid formation of public sentiment.
It further argues that the possibility of effects on the investigative and judicial process should be independently examined.
7. Possible Involvement of the Council Secretariat
The petition raises questions concerning documents distributed within Sukagawa City around December 2011.
It asks whether the Council Secretariat was involved in the preparation, printing, distribution, or circulation of those documents.
It further argues that, even if direct involvement did not occur, a failure to take corrective action after becoming aware of the situation may itself require examination.
8. Failure to Correct the Situation for More Than Thirteen Years
The petition argues that the problems associated with the resolutions were left unexamined and uncorrected for more than thirteen years.
It states that the continuing absence of corrective measures has allowed the alleged human rights violations to persist and expand.
9. Measures Requested from the Sukagawa City Council
The petition asks the Council to respond promptly and sincerely.
It also requests a written response setting out the proposed investigation schedule, the responsible officials, the method of investigation, and the body that would conduct the examination.
Questions Raised by the Document
1. Did the Sukagawa City Council conduct an adequate investigation after receiving specific allegations of human rights violations?
The petition identifies issues involving due process, the presumption of innocence, personal rights, the will of the electorate, the possible involvement of the Council Secretariat, and the constitutional duty of public officials.
Did the Council undertake an objective and independent investigation of these issues after receiving the petition?
2. Can the fairness of a criminal trial be adequately protected when a public institution expresses an assumption of guilt before judgment?
The first resignation recommendation resolution was adopted while the petitioner was under arrest and detention.
The second resolution was adopted before the first criminal hearing.
When a public body issues an accusatory assessment before criminal responsibility has been finally determined, can the fairness of the subsequent investigation, trial, and judgment be adequately protected?
3. Is it permissible to adopt a resignation recommendation resolution without providing an opportunity to respond?
The first resolution was adopted when the petitioner had no sufficient opportunity to present an explanation or rebuttal.
Is the absence of formal legal binding force sufficient to justify denying a person the opportunity to be heard when the practical consequences may be serious?
4. Are four repeated resignation recommendation resolutions consistent with the will expressed by voters?
A member of a local assembly is directly elected by residents.
Did the repeated adoption of resignation recommendation resolutions interfere with the political choice made by the electorate?
5. Was the Council Secretariat involved in the preparation, printing, distribution, or circulation of the documents at issue?
Who prepared the documents distributed around December 2011?
Who printed and distributed them?
What was the extent of their circulation?
Did the Council Secretariat play any role?
6. Can the failure to take corrective measures after receiving specific allegations constitute a new omission?
The Sukagawa City Council received the petition on April 3, 2025.
From that date onward, the Council was at least formally aware that specific constitutional and human rights concerns had been raised.
If no adequate investigation, examination, or corrective measure was subsequently implemented, does that failure itself constitute a new omission requiring legal examination?
7. Was the legal consultation conducted after submission of the petition intended to facilitate an objective examination?
A legal consultation was conducted on April 19, 2025.
Was it intended to advance the independent investigation requested in the petition?
Or was it intended primarily to justify past actions and limit the scope of the response?
8. Did the Council’s response directly address the measures requested in the petition?
The petition requested an investigation, independent examination, publication of the results, withdrawal of the resolutions, apologies, corrective measures, institutional safeguards against recurrence, and a written response.
Did the Council provide a specific and sufficient answer to each of these requests?
Relevant Legal Standards
The following legal standards are relevant to the issues raised by this document. Their detailed interpretation and application to this case are examined separately in the legal analysis section of this website.
Constitution of Japan
Article 13: Respect for individuals and the protection of personal dignity and personal interests.
Article 14, paragraph 1: Equality under the law and protection against unjustified discriminatory treatment.
Article 15, paragraph 1: The inherent right of the people to choose and dismiss public officials.
Article 31: Due process of law.
Article 32: The right of access to the courts.
Article 37, paragraph 1: The right of an accused person to a speedy and public trial by an impartial tribunal.
Article 76, paragraph 3: Judicial independence and the requirement that judges act independently in the exercise of their conscience and be bound only by the Constitution and laws.
Article 93, paragraph 2: Direct election of members of local assemblies by residents.
Article 98, paragraph 2: The obligation of Japan to faithfully observe treaties and established laws of nations.
Article 99: The obligation of public officials to respect and uphold the Constitution.
Other Relevant Domestic Standards
Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 336: When a crime has not been proven, the court must render a judgment of acquittal.
Local Autonomy Act, Article 135: Statutory disciplinary procedures applicable to members of local assemblies.
Local Public Service Act, Articles 30 and 32: Duties of local public officials to serve the public interest and comply with laws and regulations.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
Article 14, paragraph 1: The right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal.
Article 14, paragraph 2: The right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Article 2, paragraph 3: The obligation to provide an effective remedy for violations of rights recognized in the Covenant.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT)
Article 26: Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties and must be performed in good faith.
Article 27: A party may not invoke provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
Human Rights Committee General Comments
General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30: Public authorities must refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial, including by making public statements affirming the guilt of an accused person before guilt has been established according to law.
General Comment No. 31: States must ensure effective remedies, cease continuing violations, and provide appropriate reparation where Covenant rights have been violated.
Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts
Article 1: Every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State.
Article 2: An internationally wrongful act exists when conduct attributable to the State constitutes a breach of an international obligation.
Article 4: The conduct of any State organ is attributable to the State under international law. This may include the conduct of organs of local government.
Article 12: A breach exists when an act or omission is not in conformity with an international obligation.
Article 14: A breach resulting from a continuing act or omission may continue for as long as the conduct remains inconsistent with the obligation.
Article 30: A State responsible for an internationally wrongful act must cease the act and, where appropriate, offer assurances and guarantees of non-repetition.
Article 31: A responsible State must make full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act.
Article 32: A State may not rely on its internal law as justification for failure to comply with its obligations arising from international responsibility.
Relevance to This Case
This document is a starting point for the series of requests, internal reviews, legal consultations, official responses, resident audit requests, and resident litigation that followed from 2025 onward.
By receiving the petition on April 3, 2025, the Sukagawa City Council became formally aware that specific constitutional and international human rights concerns had been raised regarding the four resignation recommendation resolutions adopted between 2011 and 2012.
The Council also became aware that the petitioner was requesting:
an independent investigation by a third-party body;
publication of the investigation results;
withdrawal of the resolutions;
apologies by the relevant parties;
corrective measures;
institutional safeguards against recurrence; and
a written response.
After submission of the petition, a legal consultation was conducted on April 19, 2025. An internal report was prepared by the Council Secretariat on April 23, 2025. Responses were subsequently issued by Sukagawa City and the Sukagawa City Council on April 28, 2025.
If a public institution expressed an accusatory assessment before the completion of criminal proceedings, the issue is not limited to its effect on the petitioner’s reputation or political status.
It is also necessary to examine whether that assessment spread through media reporting and public opinion and whether it exerted external pressure on the investigation, trial, and judgment.
Related Documents
Japanese-Language Version of This Article
Next Evidence Article
[Written Request Submitted to Sukagawa City Seeking an Examination and Correction of Human Rights Violations]
Related Evidence Articles
[First Resignation Recommendation Resolution dated October 26, 2011]
[Second Resignation Recommendation Resolution dated December 1, 2011]
[Third Resignation Recommendation Resolution dated February 9, 2012]
[Fourth Resignation Recommendation Resolution dated March 2012]
[Document Distributed within Sukagawa City around December 2011]
[Legal Consultation Conducted after Submission of the Petition]
[Response Issued by Sukagawa City on April 28, 2025]
[Response Issued by the Sukagawa City Council on April 28, 2025]
Related Analysis Pages
Record and Examination of the Case: Part 4 — Violation of the Presumption of Innocence
Record and Examination of the Case: Part 5 — Efforts to Obtain a Remedy
Legal Arguments and Structure of the Constitutional and Legal Violations