As constitutional scholars point out, the use of the civil code and closed hearings violates the Japanese constitution in the dissolution case, Family Federation files new briefs to the Court of Appeal
Tokyo, 27th June 2025 – Published as an article in the Japanese newspaper Sekai Nippo. Republished with permission. Translated from Japanese. Original article.
Family Federation Claims It Is Unconstitutional to Apply Civil Law and Hold Closed Hearings in Dissolution Order Case
by the Religious Freedom Investigative Team of the editorial department of Sekai Nippo
Prepared by Knut Holdhus
Legal scholars’ opinions become the focal point of the dispute
The Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (formerly the Unification Church), which filed an immediate appeal with the Tokyo High Court challenging the Tokyo District Court’s dissolution order, submitted three briefs to the High Court dated 20th June. In these documents, the religious organization argued against the legitimacy of the dissolution order, citing opinion papers by Masaki Nakamasa (仲正昌樹), a political scientist and professor at Kanazawa University, and Setsu Kobayashi (小林節), a constitutional scholar and professor emeritus at Keio University.
Kobayashi believes that including the Civil Code in the legal grounds for the dissolution of religious corporations according to the Religious Corporations Act – and holding non-public hearings – violates the Constitution. Based on that, the religious organization signaled its intent to challenge the order on constitutional grounds, depending on how the case proceeds.
The Family Federation had already submitted a “Statement of Reasons for Appeal” on 21st April and a “Brief” on 23rd May to the Tokyo High Court. The recent filings are a continuation of these. Seeking to clarify the core of the dissolution request issue, the new documents explore topics like religious persecution history, legal philosophy, and the nature of Japanese society. They also highlight Nakamasa’s criticism of the District Court’s decision.
Nakamasa argues:
- The Family Federation’s specific unlawful acts were not identified, and no objective criteria were given to explain why only the Family Federation was targeted for dissolution.
- The move toward a dissolution order appears to be a “political decision”.
- The court ignored the fact that the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) allegedly fabricated and falsified documents.
Constitutional scholar Setsu Kobayashi, an expert on the separation of church and state, had already submitted a written opinion to the District Court titled “The Tense Relationship Between the Principle of Separation of Church and State and Freedom of Religion”. After the court’s ruling, he felt “intense indignation” and submitted a new opinion letter.
In his opinion paper, Kobayashi asserts that freedom of religion is a superior human right and that any restrictions on it must be subject to strict scrutiny. He emphasized that any disadvantageous measures by the state against a religious organization must adhere to legally prescribed, rigorous, and appropriate procedures. He also argued that Article 81 of the Religious Corporations Act, which allows for the dissolution of religious entities for “violating laws and regulations”, has remained constitutional because “laws and regulations” have been narrowly interpreted to mean criminal law. Including the Civil Code in this scope, he says, would be unconstitutional.
Kobayashi further pointed to Article 32 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, and Article 82, which mandates that trials affecting citizens’ rights must be open to the public. He stated that the issue of dissolving a religious corporation clearly constitutes a legal “dispute”, and holding such proceedings as non-public “non-contentious” [See editor’s note below] hearings violates the Constitution.
The views of a prominent constitutional scholar carry significant weight. While the Family Federation is prioritizing the correction of the District Court’s errors, it said it is provisionally asserting the unconstitutionality of the non-contentious [See editor’s note below] proceedings. It added that if the case proceeds to a final appeal before the Supreme Court, it intends to fully argue that the decision is unconstitutional and therefore invalid.
The judgment of the High Court may ultimately determine the future of religious freedom in Japan.
[Editor’s note: A non-contentious case refers to a legal matter where there is no dispute between parties. These cases typically involve administrative, procedural, or uncontested legal actions, such as probate (handling a deceased person’s estate), uncontested divorces, adoption, or registering a trademark. Since there are no opposing parties or legal conflicts, these cases usually proceed smoothly through the legal system without litigation.]