Tokyo, Nov. 3 (Jiji Press)–While Japan on Tuesday marked 80 years since the promulgation of its Constitution, debate continues over whether the supreme law should be revised to include an emergency clause that temporarily expands the government’s authority during large-scale disasters. Some experts argue that such a clause is necessary for ensuring swift initial responses to disasters, such as a possible powerful earthquake striking directly beneath the Tokyo metropolitan area or in the Nankai Trough in the Pacific off central and western Japan. Others are concerned, saying that it could lead to a concentration of authority. Yoshiaki Kawata, a Kansai University professor specializing in major natural disasters, said that “existing laws alone may not be sufficient in certain cases” because large-scale disasters would require responses involving multiple agencies and ministries. While the disaster management basic law contains a provision for a disaster-related state of emergency, applying the clause would require time for coordination across relevant agencies, and “damage will continue to spread in the meantime,” he said. Kawata called for a mechanism in which a state-of-emergency clause is applied when disasters exceed certain criteria to be set based on damage projections. A system enabling the prime minister to make decisions swiftly based on expert opinions is necessary, he added. Meanwhile, lawyer Koju Nagai, an expert on constitutional revision, is cautious about introducing an emergency clause to the supreme law. Such a clause was not included in the Constitution when it was established, partly to prevent concentration of power in the government during emergencies, according to Nagai. Individual laws, such as the disaster management basic law, stipulate the government’s authority and procedures according to the needs of each situation, making them “less prone to abuse of power,” he said. Nagai said that municipalities are best equipped to respond effectively to disasters because they have the most detailed understanding of the situations in affected areas, adding that mechanisms are in place for prefectural governments and the central governments to assume municipal duties if municipal governments become unable to execute them. Using existing systems and making preparations are important, he said. Akira Kotaki, visiting professor at Kokushikan University who was in charge of disaster management at the Cabinet Office when a massive earthquake and tsunami struck northeastern Japan in March 2011, warned that there are challenges to the actual implementation of necessary measures. When Japan worked to procure and transport emergency supplies in the immediate aftermath of the 2011 disaster, funds needed for the operations had not been earmarked in the central government’s initial annual budget at the time. “It was an extralegal decision” to engage in such operations, Kotaki recalled. The expenses were later covered from reserve funds and other sources. A swift initial response could be difficult even if an unexpected major disaster occurs in the future if reserve funds prove insufficient and the government has to wait for the enactment of a supplementary budget, he warned. If government authority is to be expanded, safeguards, such as limiting the duration of expanded authority and requiring ex-post facto parliamentary approval, would be necessary, Kotaki suggested. “The question is how we should strike a balance between people’s safety and rights,” he said. END [Copyright The Jiji Press, Ltd.]
