Overview of the Document
Document title:
Minutes of the September 2011 Regular Meeting, October 26, 2011
Date of creation:
October 26, 2011
Created by:
Sukagawa City Council
Source:
Obtained from the Sukagawa City Council website, printed on June 25, 2025
Type of document:
Minutes of a city council plenary session
Relevant date:
October 26, 2011
Publication format:
PDF excerpt of the relevant parts of the original minutes
Original PDF:
Skip to PDF contentFacts Confirmed by This Document
This document is the minutes of the plenary session of the September 2011 Regular Meeting of the Sukagawa City Council, held on October 26, 2011.
In the fifth agenda schedule, Item 1 was listed as “Council Member-Submitted Resolution Bill No. 1: Recommendation for the Resignation of Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya.”
The same item was also listed among the matters placed before the meeting on that day.
The minutes record 27 council members as present.
One council member was absent. The absent member was recorded as No. 1, Toshio Tsumuraya.
At the beginning of the plenary session, the chair stated that the council member who had submitted notice of absence was No. 1, Toshio Tsumuraya, and that the number of members present satisfied the quorum.
Thereafter, Item 1, the recommendation for the resignation of Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya, was taken up.
Council Member No. 14, Nii-o Mori, appeared as the proposer and explained the reasons for the proposal.
In the explanation of reasons, it was stated that council members, having received the mandate of the citizens, must fulfill their duties with a high sense of ethics and judgment for the advancement of municipal government and the happiness of the citizens.
The explanation then referred to the arrest of Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya on suspicion of drunk driving, stating that such conduct should never occur, that acts undermining trust in council members and the council itself could never be tolerated, and that the matter was extremely regrettable and aroused anger.
It was further explained that the council had held repeated meetings and discussions on how to respond, and that, because the council member could not avoid political and moral responsibility, the council should adopt a resolution calling on him to resign from office of his own will.
After the explanation of reasons, the chair asked whether questions, referral to committee, and debate on Council Member-Submitted Resolution Bill No. 1 should be omitted.
Voices of “no objection” were heard. The chair found that there was no objection and decided to omit questions, referral to committee, and debate.
A vote was then taken on Council Member-Submitted Resolution Bill No. 1.
The vote was conducted by standing.
All members present stood in favor.
The chair declared that all members had stood in favor and that Council Member-Submitted Resolution Bill No. 1 had been adopted as originally proposed.
The meeting opened at 10:00 a.m., and the resolution was adopted before the recess at 10:04 a.m.
Important Statements
The most important point confirmed by this document is that the first recommendation for resignation was taken up as Item 1 at the beginning of the plenary session, before indictment, while the person concerned was in detention, and in his absence.
Toshio Tsumuraya, the person concerned, was recorded as an absent council member.
At that time, he had not yet been indicted.
The criminal trial had not yet begun.
He was also in detention following his arrest.
Nevertheless, the plenary session took up a resignation recommendation resolution against him as Item 1, and an explanation of the reasons for the proposal was given.
In the explanation of reasons, on the basis of the arrest on suspicion of drunk driving, the proposer used evaluative language such as an act undermining trust in the council, extremely regrettable, anger cannot be suppressed, and political and moral responsibility cannot be avoided.
However, an arrest is not a conviction.
The resolution was also adopted before indictment.
Before the person concerned had been tried in a criminal court, and at a stage where the minutes do not confirm any opportunity for him to explain or rebut the allegations, the council expressed the view that he could not avoid political and moral responsibility and that he should resign from office of his own will.
Questions, referral to committee, and debate were then omitted.
The vote was conducted by standing, and the resolution was adopted as originally proposed by the unanimous approval of the members present, while the person concerned was absent.
The minutes also show that the meeting opened at 10:00 a.m. and went into recess at 10:04 a.m.
Accordingly, the plenary-session proceedings concerning the first recommendation for resignation were completed within four minutes from the opening of the meeting to the recess.
This document shows that, before indictment, while the person concerned was in detention, and in his absence, the Sukagawa City Council adopted the first recommendation for resignation by the unanimous approval of the members present, after presenting assertive evaluations based on the arrest, and after omitting questions, referral to committee, and debate.
This document records the proceedings concerning the first recommendation for resignation itself.
How this resolution later connected to the extension of detention, the prosecutor’s interrogation, changes in statements, indictment, trial, and conviction is examined separately in the related interrogation records, indictment, judgment, and integrated review article.
That said, the fact that a public institution expressed an evaluation premised on guilt before judgment, while the person concerned was detained before indictment and absent from the session, constitutes an independent issue under the presumption of innocence, regardless of whether it is later shown to have affected the criminal proceedings.
Questions Raised by This Document
1. Does the absence of legal binding force permit pre-judgment public treatment as guilty?
A resignation recommendation resolution is sometimes described as a political expression of opinion by a council, without legal binding force to immediately deprive a council member of office.
However, the issue in this case is not limited to whether the resignation recommendation resolution immediately deprived the council member of his legal status.
The issue is that, before criminal responsibility had been determined, a public institution, namely a local council, officially expressed the view that the person concerned bore political and moral responsibility and should resign from office.
Article 14, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ICCPR, guarantees the right of a person charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30, also indicates that all public authorities have a duty to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a criminal trial.
If so, even if a resignation recommendation resolution is, under domestic law, a non-binding political expression of opinion, does that permit a public institution to express an evaluation premised on guilt before judgment?
Furthermore, Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, VCLT, provides that a party may not invoke its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.
Therefore, the question arises whether the domestic-law explanation that “a resignation recommendation resolution is merely a political expression of opinion” can avoid the issue of the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR.
In this case, what must be examined is not only whether the resignation recommendation resolution had legal binding force, but whether the public institution’s pre-judgment expression of an evaluation premised on guilt itself violated the presumption of innocence — and this question does not depend on whether the first recommendation for resignation actually affected the later outcome of the criminal trial.
The fact that a public institution expressed an evaluation premised on guilt before judgment is itself an independent issue under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR.
Whether and how that act affected the later criminal proceedings is a separate question to be examined additionally.
2. What problems does a pre-judgment council resolution raise in relation to judicial power and the fairness of the trial?
Article 76, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan provides that the whole judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as are established by law.
Article 76, paragraph 3 provides that all judges shall be independent in the exercise of their conscience and shall be bound only by the Constitution and laws.
In this case, the first recommendation for resignation was adopted before indictment, while the person concerned was in detention, and in his absence.
At that time, the criminal trial had not yet begun, and there had been no finding of guilt by any court.
Nevertheless, a public institution, the local council, adopted a resignation recommendation resolution on the basis of an arrest for alleged drunk driving.
Such a pre-judgment public expression raises issues in relation to the fact that the determination of criminal responsibility belongs to the judiciary, and that judges must decide independently without external influence.
Therefore, the first recommendation for resignation must be examined not only in relation to the presumption of innocence, but also in relation to the location of judicial power and the fairness of the trial.
3. Was it appropriate to adopt a resignation recommendation resolution before indictment, while the person concerned was detained, and in his absence?
According to this document, Toshio Tsumuraya was recorded as an absent council member.
At that time, he had not yet been indicted.
The criminal trial had not yet begun.
He was in detention following his arrest.
Under such circumstances, how can it be explained, in light of the presumption of innocence, due process, and the fairness of the trial, that a public institution, the city council, adopted a resignation recommendation resolution against him at a plenary session?
4. Is it permissible to make assertive political and moral evaluations on the basis of arrest?
In the explanation of reasons, on the basis of the arrest on suspicion of drunk driving, the proposer stated that the conduct undermined trust in the council, was extremely regrettable, caused anger that could not be suppressed, and that political and moral responsibility could not be avoided.
However, an arrest is not a conviction.
The resolution was adopted before indictment.
A person must be presumed innocent until a final finding of guilt is made according to law.
Is it consistent with the principle of the presumption of innocence for a public institution to evaluate the person’s responsibility in assertive terms and call for resignation on the basis of arrest?
5. Can the expression “political and moral responsibility” avoid the issue of the presumption of innocence?
The explanation of reasons states that the person concerned could not avoid political and moral responsibility.
However, the factual premise for that evaluation was the arrest on suspicion of drunk driving.
Before criminal responsibility had been determined, does deriving political and moral responsibility from the fact of arrest and calling for resignation not amount, in substance, to an evaluation premised on guilt?
Even if a resignation recommendation resolution is a non-binding political expression of opinion, when a public institution expresses an evaluation premised on guilt before judgment, does an issue remain under Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30?
6. Was an opportunity for explanation or rebuttal secured for the person concerned?
This document records the person concerned as absent.
At the plenary session, the reasons for the resolution against him were explained, and then questions, referral to committee, and debate were omitted before the vote was taken.
Given that he was in detention, it would have been difficult for him to explain or rebut the allegations at the plenary session.
At what stage, and in what manner, was an opportunity secured for him to explain or rebut a resignation recommendation resolution that could seriously affect his political status, honor, and social reputation?
7. Was it appropriate to omit questions, referral to committee, and debate?
This document records that the chair asked whether questions, referral to committee, and debate should be omitted, and that no objection was raised.
As a result, the resolution was adopted after omitting questions, referral to committee, and debate.
Even if a resignation recommendation resolution is formally non-binding, it can have serious effects on the political status, honor, social reputation, and council activities of the person concerned.
Was it appropriate, from the perspectives of due process and careful deliberation by the council, to omit questions, referral to committee, and debate on such a resolution?
8. Can a resolution adopted within four minutes of the opening of the session be said to have been sufficiently examined?
This document shows that the meeting opened at 10:00 a.m. and went into recess at 10:04 a.m.
During that interval, the explanation of reasons, the omission of questions, referral to committee, and debate, the vote, and the adoption of the resolution all took place.
Can it be said that there was sufficient fact-finding and legal examination concerning a resolution that could seriously disadvantage the person concerned?
9. What is the significance of unanimous approval by standing vote?
This document records that all members present stood in favor and that the resolution was adopted as originally proposed.
This means that the resolution was adopted by all members present while the person concerned was absent.
It also means that the first recommendation for resignation was not merely the statement of an individual council member or a particular faction, but was expressed as the will of the Sukagawa City Council at that time.
How should the effect of such a unanimous resolution on the honor, social reputation, political status, and subsequent public perception of the person concerned be evaluated?
10. How did the council consider both the rights and interests of the person concerned and the mandate of the citizens?
The explanation of reasons refers to the citizens’ mandate, trust in the council, political responsibility, and moral responsibility.
However, the person concerned had also been elected as a council member through the votes of citizens.
How did the Sukagawa City Council consider the will of the citizens who voted for him, his political status, his opportunity to be heard, and the principle of the presumption of innocence?
11. Did the Sukagawa City Council later verify this resolution?
This resolution has not been withdrawn.
On April 3, 2025, a petition was submitted seeking verification and correction of the resignation recommendation resolutions.
Did the Sukagawa City Council conduct an objective investigation and verification of the content, procedure, impact, and legal evaluation of the first recommendation for resignation?
Relevant Laws, Treaties, and International Standards
Domestic Law
Article 13 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision is relevant to personal dignity and personality interests. The effect of the resignation recommendation resolution on the honor, social reputation, and political status of the person concerned is at issue.
Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision is relevant to due process. In this case, the issue is not only whether the person concerned had a sufficient opportunity to explain or rebut, but also whether the fact that a public institution, the city council, expressed an evaluation premised on guilt before judgment is consistent with the purposes of due process and the presumption of innocence.
Article 32 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision is relevant to the right of access to the courts. When a public institution expresses an evaluation premised on guilt before judgment, and that evaluation spreads through reporting and social perception, the issue arises whether the person concerned’s position to receive fair judicial judgment in the subsequent criminal trial was sufficiently protected.
Article 37, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision is relevant to the right of a criminal defendant to a speedy and public trial by an impartial tribunal. The issue is whether an impartial trial was secured under circumstances where pre-judgment public treatment as guilty by a public institution could exert external pressure on the investigation, trial, and judgment.
Article 76, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision is relevant to the requirement that judges exercise their authority independently and be bound only by the Constitution and laws. The fact that the city council, which had no authority to determine criminal responsibility, expressed an evaluation premised on criminal facts before judgment raises issues in relation to the anticipation of judicial judgment, judicial independence, and the fairness of the trial.
Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision requires faithful observance of treaties concluded by Japan and established laws of nations. It is relevant to Japan’s obligation to faithfully implement the ICCPR.
Article 99 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision is relevant to the constitutional duty of council members and other public officials to respect and uphold the Constitution. The issue is whether a public institution, the city council, acted consistently with that duty when it expressed an evaluation premised on guilt before judgment.
Article 336 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
This provision requires an acquittal when there is no proof of a crime. It is relevant to the principle of the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings.
International Human Rights Treaty: ICCPR
Article 14, paragraph 1 of the ICCPR:
This provision is relevant to the right to a fair trial. When a public institution expresses an evaluation premised on guilt before judgment, and that evaluation spreads through reporting and social perception, the issue arises whether the criminal proceedings and trial conducted under that influence sufficiently protected the right to a fair trial.
Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR:
This provision guarantees that everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. In this case, the issue is whether the city council, a public institution, violated the presumption of innocence by expressing an evaluation premised on guilt before judgment.
Standards Concerning Treaty Performance and Interpretation
Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, VCLT:
A treaty in force is binding upon the parties and must be performed by them in good faith. This is relevant to Japan’s obligation to faithfully implement the ICCPR, which Japan has ratified.
Article 27 of the VCLT:
A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. The issue is whether Japan can avoid examining its obligations under the ICCPR on the ground that the act was taken by a local council, that it was an internal council matter, or that no domestic procedure is provided.
General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30 of the Human Rights Committee:
This international standard is relevant to whether public authorities may express the guilt of an accused person in a manner that prejudges the outcome of a criminal trial.
The detailed interpretation of each provision, its application to this case, and the relationship among these provisions are examined in the page “Legal Arguments and Structure of Unconstitutionality and Illegality.”
Relationship to This Case
In this case, on October 26, 2011, the Sukagawa City Council adopted the first recommendation for resignation before Toshio Tsumuraya had been indicted.
At that time, the criminal trial had not yet begun, and no conviction existed. He was also in detention and had no opportunity to attend the plenary session to explain or defend himself.
The important point is that an arrest is not a conviction. Nor is it a measure that determines criminal responsibility. The fact of arrest only means that criminal proceedings have begun. Indictment, trial, and judgment are still procedures to be carried out afterward.
Despite this, the explanation of reasons for the resolution stated, before any judgment, that the conduct undermined trust in the council and that political and moral responsibility could not be avoided. The resolution then called on him to resign from office.
The issue is not limited to whether the resignation recommendation resolution had legal binding force.
What must be examined is that, before indictment, while the person concerned was in detention and absent from the session, a local council, as a public institution, officially evaluated his responsibility on the basis of arrest and called on him to resign.
In light of Article 14, paragraph 2 of the ICCPR and General Comment No. 32, paragraph 30, a public authority’s assertive pre-judgment evaluation raises an independent issue under the principle of the presumption of innocence, apart from whether the resolution had legal binding force.
This case also involves a public resolution by a local council evaluating the responsibility of the person concerned before any criminal court had made a judgment.
While this case may also be considered from the perspective of anticipating judicial judgment before any criminal court had ruled, the central issue remains the relationship between the resolution, the presumption of innocence, and due process.
This document is important because it shows what words the Sukagawa City Council used, and through what procedure it acted, when it called on the person concerned to resign before criminal responsibility had been determined.
This document records the proceedings concerning the first recommendation for resignation itself.
How this resolution later connected to the extension of detention, the prosecutor’s interrogation, changes in statements, indictment, trial, and conviction is to be examined additionally through the related interrogation records, indictment, judgment, and integrated review article.
Apart from the question of its actual effect on the later criminal proceedings, the fact that a public institution expressed an evaluation premised on guilt before judgment, while the person concerned was detained before indictment and absent from the session, is itself an independent matter for examination in relation to the principle of the presumption of innocence.
Related Materials
Related pages
The following core pages are currently available in Japanese only.
Record and Verification of the Case
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 1
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 2
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 3
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 4
Record and Verification of the Case, Part 5
Legal Arguments and Structure of Unconstitutionality and Illegality
Related evidence articles:
Document Distributed in Sukagawa City—Group Calling for the Resignation of Toshio Tsumuraya
Related normative articles:
Related timeline entries:
October 18, 2011:
The alleged incident was said to have occurred.
October 19, 2011:
Toshio Tsumuraya voluntarily appeared at the police station and was then arrested pursuant to an arrest warrant. This was not an arrest in flagrante delicto. Detention began.
October 24, 2011,
Assembly Steering Committee held before the First Resolution Recommending Resignation
October 26, 2011,
First Resolution Recommending Resignation
November 9, 2011:
He was indicted and was later released on bail.
November 28, 2011,
Assembly Steering Committee held before the Second Resolution Recommending Resignation
December 1, 2011,
Second Resolution Recommending Resignation
January 16, 2012,
Conviction
January 31, 2012,
Conviction became final and binding
February 7, 2012,
Assembly Steering Committee held before the Third Resolution Recommending Resignation
February 9, 2012,
Third Resolution Recommending Resignation
February 27, 2012,
Assembly Steering Committee held before the Fourth Resolution Recommending Resignation
March 1, 2012,
Fourth Resolution Recommending Resignation