Overview of the Document
Document title:
Minutes of the First Extraordinary Meeting of the Sukagawa City Council in 2012, February 9, 2012
Date created:
February 9, 2012
Created by:
Sukagawa City Council
Source of acquisition:
Obtained from the Sukagawa City Council website, printed on June 25, 2025
Type of document:
Minutes of a city council plenary session
Relevant period:
February 9, 2012
Format published:
PDF containing excerpts of the relevant portions from the original minutes
Original PDF:
Skip to PDF contentFacts Confirmed by This Document
This document consists of the minutes of the plenary session of the First Extraordinary Meeting of the Sukagawa City Council in 2012, held on February 9, 2012.
In the agenda for Meeting Schedule No. 1, Item 3 is listed as “Council Member-Submitted Resolution No. 1: Resolution Recommending the Resignation of Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya.”
The same item is also listed under the matters submitted to the meeting on that day as Item 3, “Council Member-Submitted Resolution No. 1: Resolution Recommending the Resignation of Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya.”
The number of attending council members was 28.
There were no absent council members.
Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya was also recorded as attending, as Council Member No. 1.
At the plenary session, Council Member-Submitted Resolution No. 1, “Resolution Recommending the Resignation of Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya,” was handled as an urgent matter under Item 3.
The chair recognized the resolution as an urgent matter and asked whether it should be placed on the agenda. There was no objection.
The chair then requested that Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya leave the chamber pursuant to Article 117 of the Local Autonomy Act.
As a result, Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya left the chamber.
After that, Council Member Arata Mori, Council Member No. 14, spoke and, before entering into the explanation of the resolution itself, stated the reasons for the proposal and the future course of action.
Council Member Arata Mori stated, in substance, that although Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya had twice received recommendations for resignation in response to conduct unbecoming of a public official, namely being arrested for drunk driving, he had not complied with those recommendations, using such reasons as the fact that he was awaiting trial.
He also stated, in substance, that with respect to the judgment of January 16, 2012, which imposed one year of imprisonment with a three-year suspended sentence, Toshio Tsumuraya was refusing to resign as a council member by relying on the fact that the sentence was suspended.
Council Member Arata Mori further stated that such words and conduct, which he characterized as disregard for the council, disregard for citizens, and antisocial, could never be tolerated.
He then stated, in substance, that all council members would continue to seek his resignation, would continue to issue recommendations for resignation as many times as necessary, and would work through their activities as council members to ensure that the matter would never be forgotten.
The explanation of Council Member-Submitted Resolution No. 1 then followed.
The text of the resolution stated that city council members, as representatives of the citizens, must deeply recognize the weight of their duties and work for the development of municipal administration and the realization of citizens’ well-being with high ethical standards and sound judgment.
It also stated that the Sukagawa City Council had, until then, twice adopted resolutions recommending that Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya resign.
It further stated that, even after receiving the court result of guilty on January 16, 2012, his position that he had no intention of resigning as a council member showed serious disregard for the council’s decision.
The resolution also stated that, during this period, many citizens had expressed anger toward council members, that the reality that a council member who had driven under the influence of alcohol continued to serve as a council member was beginning to lead to distrust not only toward the city council but also toward the entire municipal administration, and that even ordinary citizens were beginning to be subject to critical views.
The text of the resolution includes the statement, “We will continue to appeal as many times as necessary.”
This shows that the stance of repeatedly appealing for resignation was not limited to the pre-explanation statement that the council would continue to issue recommendations for resignation as many times as necessary; it was also recorded in the text of the resolution itself.
The text of the resolution stated that driving under the influence of alcohol while in office was outrageous, and that such a person should not continue to serve as a city council member.
It also stated that the conduct and words showing disregard for the council as a city council member seriously damaged the trust and dignity of the solemn council entrusted by the citizens, that political and moral responsibility could not be avoided, and that such conduct was impermissible from the standpoint of public sentiment.
The resolution stated that the Sukagawa City Council once again strongly demanded that Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya reconsider his situation and resign as a council member of his own will, and that the resolution was adopted for that purpose.
After the explanation of the reasons for the proposal, the chair announced that questions, referral to a committee, and debate would be omitted with respect to the resolution.
A vote was then taken on Council Member-Submitted Resolution No. 1.
The vote was conducted by standing, and all attending members stood in favor.
After the vote, the meeting was suspended and then resumed, and Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya was requested to return to his seat.
Accordingly, this document confirms that the third recommendation for resignation was adopted after the guilty judgment had become final and binding, after the person concerned had left the chamber, following the explanation of reasons by Council Member Arata Mori, with questions, referral to a committee, and debate omitted, and with the approval of all attending council members.
This document also confirms that, as a statement made before the explanation of the resolution, it was said that recommendations for resignation would be issued as many times as necessary, and that the text of the resolution itself also included the statement, “We will continue to appeal as many times as necessary.”
Important Entries
What is particularly important in this document is that the third recommendation for resignation was adopted after the guilty judgment had become final and binding.
The first recommendation for resignation was adopted before indictment, while the person concerned was in detention and absent from the plenary session.
The second recommendation for resignation was adopted before the first hearing and before judgment, after the person concerned had left the chamber.
By contrast, the third recommendation for resignation was adopted after the guilty judgment of January 16, 2012, and after that judgment became final and binding on January 31, 2012.
Therefore, with respect to the third recommendation for resignation, the issue differs from the pre-judgment official assumption of guilt that arose in relation to the first and second recommendations. The issue here is the meaning of the council’s further repetition of recommendations for resignation after the judgment had become final and binding.
In this document, Council Member Arata Mori stated that Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya had not complied with the recommendations even though he had twice received recommendations for resignation.
He also made an assessment that Toshio Tsumuraya had used such reasons as the fact that he was awaiting trial as an excuse, and that he was refusing to resign by relying on the fact that the sentence was suspended.
What is particularly important here is that, although the judgment of January 16, 2012 imposed one year of imprisonment with a three-year suspended sentence, it was described in the pre-explanation statement as an “actual prison sentence.”
In general, a sentence of imprisonment with suspension of execution is distinguished from an actual prison sentence requiring immediate imprisonment.
Nevertheless, in this document, the judgment with a suspended sentence was described as an “actual prison sentence,” and it was further stated that the person concerned was refusing to resign by relying on the suspended sentence.
This point is important in examining how the council side understood the content of the judgment and what language it used to evaluate the attitude of the person concerned.
Council Member Arata Mori also described the words and conduct of Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya as disregard for the council, disregard for citizens, and antisocial conduct, and stated that such conduct could never be tolerated.
Particularly important is the statement made before the explanation of the resolution, in which Council Member Arata Mori stated that all council members would continue to seek the resignation of the person concerned and would continue to issue recommendations for resignation as many times as necessary.
This statement shows that the third recommendation for resignation was not a one-time expression of intent, but was accompanied by the council’s position that it would repeatedly adopt recommendations for resignation unless the person concerned resigned.
Even more important is that the text of the resolution itself also includes the statement, “We will continue to appeal as many times as necessary.”
This statement shows that the stance of repeatedly demanding resignation was incorporated not only into the pre-explanation statement, but also into the text of the resolution itself.
Accordingly, this document confirms that, in the third recommendation for resignation, the Sukagawa City Council expressed, both in the statement made in the chamber and in the text of the resolution itself, its position that it would continue to demand resignation unless the person concerned resigned.
This document also uses the expression that driving under the influence of alcohol while in office was outrageous, and that such a person should not continue to serve as a city council member.
This expression strongly denies not only the conduct of the person concerned, but also the very fact that he continued to serve as a council member.
The resolution also refers to anger expressed by citizens, distrust toward the city council and the entire municipal administration, and the fact that even ordinary citizens were beginning to be subject to critical views.
This shows that the third recommendation for resignation was structured not only around the existence of the criminal judgment, but also around public sentiment, distrust toward the council, and criticism directed toward the entire municipal administration.
In addition, this document shows that, although Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya was present at the plenary session, he was requested to leave the chamber pursuant to Article 117 of the Local Autonomy Act, and the explanation of reasons, questions, referral to a committee, debate, and vote were conducted after he left the chamber.
In other words, the third recommendation for resignation was deliberated and voted on after the person concerned had left the chamber, even though he had been present at the plenary session.
Questions, referral to a committee, and debate were then omitted, and the resolution was adopted with the approval of all attending members.
Accordingly, this document shows that, after the judgment had become final and binding, the council adopted the third recommendation for resignation with unanimous approval after the person concerned had left the chamber, while describing the suspended sentence as an “actual prison sentence” and indicating a repeated stance through the statements “we will continue to issue recommendations for resignation as many times as necessary” and “we will continue to appeal as many times as necessary.”
Questions Raised by This Document
1. Does the fact that a judgment has become final and binding mean that recommendations for resignation may be repeated?
The third recommendation for resignation differs from the first and second recommendations in that it was adopted after the judgment had become final and binding.
However, the fact that a judgment has become final and binding and the question whether a council may repeatedly adopt recommendations for resignation are not the same.
Even after a criminal judgment has become final and binding, procedures that deprive a council member of status, disciplinary procedures, expulsion procedures, and repeated recommendations for resignation each have different legal characteristics.
How can the council’s repeated adoption of recommendations for resignation after the judgment had become final and binding be explained in relation to the disadvantages imposed on the person concerned in terms of political status, honor, personal interests, and council activities?
2. How should the description of a suspended sentence as an “actual prison sentence” be evaluated?
This document describes the judgment of January 16, 2012 as an “actual prison sentence,” even though it was a sentence of one year of imprisonment with a three-year suspension of execution.
In general, a sentence of imprisonment with suspension of execution is distinguished from an actual prison sentence requiring immediate imprisonment.
Nevertheless, was it appropriate, as an understanding of the judgment and as an evaluation of the attitude of the person concerned, for the council to describe the suspended sentence as an “actual prison sentence” and to state that the person concerned was refusing to resign by relying on the suspended sentence?
Did such an expression not create a stronger negative impression concerning the social reputation, honor, and political status of the person concerned?
3. How should the stance of “continuing to issue recommendations for resignation as many times as necessary” be evaluated?
In this document, Council Member Arata Mori stated that all council members would continue to seek the resignation of the person concerned and would continue to issue recommendations for resignation as many times as necessary.
This statement indicates that the recommendation for resignation was not a one-time expression of intent, but could be repeated unless the person concerned resigned.
A recommendation for resignation is generally explained as an expression of intent without legal binding force.
However, when a public authority such as a city council adopts a resolution after declaring to the person concerned that it will “continue to issue recommendations for resignation as many times as necessary,” does that not go beyond a mere expression of intent and function as continuing political and social pressure?
4. What is the meaning of the statement “We will continue to appeal as many times as necessary” in the text of the resolution?
This document shows that the text of the resolution itself also includes the statement, “We will continue to appeal as many times as necessary.”
This statement shows that the stance of repeatedly demanding resignation was incorporated not only into the pre-explanation statement, but also into the text of the resolution itself.
Should a recommendation for resignation containing such a statement be evaluated not merely as a one-time expression of the council’s intent, but as including an intention to exert continuing pressure until the person concerned resigns?
5. Was the person concerned given an opportunity to defend himself or respond, given that deliberation and voting took place after he left the chamber?
This document records Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya as an attending council member.
However, because the matter concerned him personally, he was requested to leave the chamber pursuant to Article 117 of the Local Autonomy Act.
After he left the chamber, the explanation of reasons, questions, referral to a committee, debate, and vote took place.
With respect to the third recommendation for resignation, which could seriously affect his political status, honor, and social reputation, at what stage and in what manner was his opportunity to defend himself or respond secured?
6. Was it appropriate to omit questions, referral to a committee, and debate?
This document shows that, after the explanation of the reasons for the proposal, questions, referral to a committee, and debate were omitted.
Even if a recommendation for resignation formally has no legal binding force, it may seriously affect the political status, honor, social reputation, and council activities of the person concerned.
Was it appropriate, from the perspectives of careful deliberation by the council and due process, to omit questions, referral to a committee, and debate even for the third recommendation for resignation?
7. To what extent is it permissible to continue demanding resignation on the basis of distrust toward the council or public sentiment?
This document refers to anger expressed by citizens, distrust toward the city council and the entire municipal administration, and the fact that even ordinary citizens were beginning to be subject to critical views.
However, the existence of distrust toward the council or public sentiment is not the same as continuing to demand the resignation of the person concerned.
To what extent is it permissible for a public authority such as a city council to repeatedly adopt recommendations for resignation against a council member on the basis of public sentiment or social criticism, in relation to the personal interests, honor, political status, and council activities of the person concerned?
8. Was it appropriate to repeat recommendations for resignation without using expulsion or other statutory procedures?
Local councils have statutory procedures concerning discipline and expulsion in certain cases.
However, what is addressed in this document is not discipline or expulsion, but a recommendation for resignation.
A recommendation for resignation is generally explained as an expression of intent without legal binding force.
Nevertheless, repeated recommendations for resignation and the council’s continued demand for resignation may become serious political and social pressure against the person concerned.
Does repeating recommendations for resignation without using statutory disciplinary or expulsion procedures raise an issue of evasion of statutory procedures or substantive sanction?
9. What is the meaning of adoption by all attending council members?
This document records that all attending members stood in favor in the vote.
This means that, after the person concerned left the chamber, the resolution was adopted with the approval of all attending council members.
This indicates that the third recommendation for resignation was not merely the statement of an individual council member or the judgment of some factions, but was expressed as the will of the Sukagawa City Council at that time.
How should the impact of such a unanimous resolution on the honor, social reputation, political status, and subsequent council activities of the person concerned be evaluated?
Relevant Laws, Treaties, and International Standards
Domestic Law
Article 13 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns respect for the individual and personal interests. Even after the judgment had become final and binding, the issue is the impact that repeated recommendations for resignation had on the honor, social reputation, personal interests, and political status of the person concerned.
Article 15, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision states that the people have the inalienable right to choose their public officials and to dismiss them. The issue is the relationship between the mandate given by residents through election and the fact that the council repeatedly adopted recommendations for resignation and continued to demand resignation from an elected council member.
Article 31 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the guarantee of due process. Even if a recommendation for resignation formally has no legal binding force, the issue is what procedural safeguards were required when it could seriously affect the political status, honor, and council activities of the person concerned.
Article 93, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the fact that members of local public entity assemblies are elected by direct popular vote of the residents. The issue is how repeated recommendations for resignation by a council majority or the entire council against a directly elected council member should be evaluated in relation to representative democracy in local self-government.
Article 99 of the Constitution of Japan:
This provision concerns the duty of city council members and other public officials to respect and uphold the Constitution. The issue is whether the council’s repeated recommendations for resignation and its continued demand that the person concerned resign were consistent with that duty.
Article 117 of the Local Autonomy Act:
This provision concerns the rule that a member of the assembly of an ordinary local public entity may not participate in proceedings concerning a matter relating personally to himself or certain relatives. The procedural meaning of requiring the person concerned to leave the chamber and then deliberating and voting on a recommendation for his resignation must be examined.
Article 134 of the Local Autonomy Act:
This provision concerns the authority of an assembly of an ordinary local public entity to discipline its members pursuant to law and meeting rules. The issue is how repeated recommendations for resignation should be positioned in relation to the disciplinary system.
Article 135 of the Local Autonomy Act:
This provision provides for the types of disciplinary measures in an assembly, including admonition in a public session, apology, suspension from attendance for a certain period, and expulsion. The issue is whether repeating recommendations for resignation without using statutory disciplinary procedures constitutes a substantive sanction or evasion of statutory procedures.
International Human Rights Treaties
Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
This provision concerns the right of citizens to take part in the conduct of public affairs, to be elected, and to have access to public service without unreasonable restrictions. The issue is how repeated recommendations for resignation by a public authority, placing serious pressure on the political status and council activities of an elected council member, should be evaluated in relation to the right of political participation.
Standards Concerning Treaty Performance and Interpretation
Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:
This provision states that every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. It is relevant to Japan’s obligation to faithfully implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Japan has ratified.
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:
This provision states that a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. The issue is whether it is permissible to avoid examining obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the ground that the act was done by a local council, that it was an internal matter of the council, or that no specific procedure is provided under the domestic legal system.
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
This document shows how the third recommendation for resignation of February 9, 2012 was proposed and voted on at the plenary session.
In the timeline of this case, a guilty judgment was rendered on January 16, 2012, and the judgment became final and binding on January 31, 2012.
Therefore, the third recommendation for resignation addressed in this document was a recommendation for resignation adopted after the judgment had become final and binding.
In this respect, the third recommendation for resignation raises different legal issues from the first recommendation for resignation, which was adopted before indictment while the person concerned was in detention and absent from the plenary session, and from the second recommendation for resignation, which was adopted before the first hearing and before judgment after the person concerned had left the chamber.
With respect to the first and second recommendations, the central issues are pre-judgment official assumption of guilt, the presumption of innocence, due process, the fairness of the trial, and anticipation of judicial judgment.
By contrast, with respect to the third recommendation, the central issues are the appropriateness, necessity, procedural safeguards, and substantive pressure to resign involved in the council’s further repetition of recommendations for resignation after the judgment had become final and binding.
According to this document, Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya was recorded as an attending council member.
However, because the matter concerned him personally, he left the chamber pursuant to Article 117 of the Local Autonomy Act.
After he left the chamber, Council Member Arata Mori explained the reasons for the proposal, questions, referral to a committee, and debate were omitted, and a vote was taken.
In the explanation of reasons, it was treated as a problem that Council Member Toshio Tsumuraya had not complied with the recommendations despite having twice received recommendations for resignation.
The judgment of January 16, 2012 was described as an “actual prison sentence,” even though it was a sentence of one year of imprisonment with a three-year suspension of execution.
In general, a sentence of imprisonment with suspension of execution is distinguished from an actual prison sentence requiring immediate imprisonment.
Nevertheless, in this document, the suspended sentence was described as an “actual prison sentence,” and it was further stated that the person concerned was refusing to resign by relying on the suspended sentence.
This point is important in examining the understanding of the judgment, the evaluation of the attitude of the person concerned, and the impact on his honor and social reputation.
The document also uses strong expressions such as disregard for the council, disregard for citizens, antisocial conduct, that driving under the influence of alcohol while in office was outrageous, and that such a person should not continue to serve as a city council member.
Particularly important is that Council Member Arata Mori stated, before explaining the resolution, that all council members would continue to seek resignation and would continue to issue recommendations for resignation as many times as necessary.
In addition, the text of the resolution itself includes the statement, “We will continue to appeal as many times as necessary.”
This means that the third recommendation for resignation was not adopted merely as a one-time political expression of intent, but clearly indicated the council’s position that it would continue and repeat its demand for resignation unless the person concerned resigned.
Accordingly, this document is a central document confirming that, in the third recommendation for resignation, the Sukagawa City Council expressed, both in oral statements and in the text of the resolution, its stance of continuing and repeating its demand for resignation.
This document must also be read together with the minutes of the Council Steering Committee meeting held on February 7, 2012.
The minutes of the Council Steering Committee meeting of February 7 confirm that the council itself recognized that recommendations for resignation should not be issued indiscriminately, while nevertheless arranging the council proceedings so that a third recommendation for resignation would be submitted to the plenary session.
The same minutes also include an explanation that, as long as Council Member Tsumuraya remained a council member, it was not permissible under current law to obstruct his right to attend, his right to speak, or his right to participate in voting.
Accordingly, the council recognized that caution was required regarding the repetition of recommendations for resignation, and it also recognized that it could not obstruct the rights of the person concerned as a council member.
Nevertheless, this document confirms that, in accordance with that prior arrangement, the third recommendation for resignation was adopted with the approval of all attending members after the person concerned had left the chamber and after questions, referral to a committee, and debate had been omitted.
Therefore, the issue in this case is whether the formal explanation that a recommendation for resignation has no legal binding force is sufficient.
Even if an expression of intent has no legal binding force, when a public authority such as a city council repeatedly demands resignation through unanimous resolutions and further indicates that it will continue to repeat such demands, it may function as continuing pressure on the political status, honor, personal interests, and council activities of the person concerned.
In this respect, the third recommendation for resignation cannot be justified as a matter of course merely because it was adopted after the judgment had become final and binding.
This document is not a document that directly shows a violation of the presumption of innocence before judgment. Rather, it is a document for examining the repetition of recommendations for resignation after the judgment had become final and binding, substantive sanction, impact on personal interests, pressure on council activities, the relationship with statutory disciplinary procedures, and the status of a council member elected by the residents.
This case requires examination of how such a plenary-session resolution can be explained in relation to personal rights, honor, political status, rights as a council member, evaluation of the content of the judgment, statutory disciplinary procedures, expulsion procedures, substantive sanction, and the cumulative pressure to resign.
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