INTRODUCTION
Is
there incompetence and corruption in the Japanese judiciary? From what I have
experienced firsthand, in my opinion, the answer is a resounding yes.
There
has been an increasing exposure of systematic inadequacies in Japan with
respect to childcare since I initially launched this lawsuit. More
specifically, the issue relates to the process of gaining admission to nursery
school as well as the shortage of openings at nursery schools.
Here
is a link http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20131111p2a00m0na007000c.html to a recent article, “Doubts
surround Abe administration's plans to eliminate childcare waiting lists” discussing
the scenario in one of the 23 Wards of Tokyo, one of several in which what has
been dubbed the “Childcare Uprising” in Japan is ongoing, and doubts about the
government’s lip service response. The Japanese term is 保育所一揆 (literally, "Nursery School Uprising"). I will have to create a dedicated blog in
Japanese for this at some point, but for now English only with documents in
Japanese followed by gradual addition of translations of pertinent passages,
and eventually all documents.
In
the case detailed in this blog, which has spanned two years, I’d anticipated
the members of the third petty bench of the Supreme Court of Japan to hand down
a just verdict addressing each of the multiple violations of the Constitution
and inconsistencies in the district and high court decisions with respect to
precedents of the Supreme Court and other high courts.
It
had been necessary to take the case to the Supreme Court because the respective
trials at the district and high courts had served merely to cover up for the
malfeasance with respect to which the decisions had been sought; that is to
say, the decision of the district court served to cover up the corrupt
practices of the city of Kyoto, and the decision of the high court served to
cover up the unlawful aspects and misinterpretations of the law present in the
decision of the district court.
The
end result, however, was that the Supreme Court refused to even examine the
case on the merits, dismissing it on grounds that are patently false. That is
simply my opinion of the matter, which I shall endeavor to explicate in this blog,
leaving a record for all that encounter similar malfeasance at the hands of any
local administrative agency in Japan.
It
should be noted that the city of Kyoto took several measures before the case
went to trial at the district level and after the decision was handed down in
order to attempt to paper over the illegal disposition and shortcomings of the
agencies in question; however, those practices are still not fully conformant
with the law. The problem is that unless they directly violate your rights,
there is little ground on which to pursue legal action.
The
unfortunate and cowardly decision of the Supreme Court of Japan has
necessitated that I present the facts of the case and explain each stage to the
public myself. A decision examining the merits would undoubtedly have provided
ample precedent for upholding the laws of Japan—including the Constitution—by
seeing the judiciary fulfill its role in checking the abuse of power by
administrative agencies managed by the executive branch. There would have been
no way possible to examine the circumstances of the case as set forth in
petitions submitted to the Supreme Court. And since there are clear precedents
of the Supreme Court itself pertaining to the violation of Constitutional
rights, I think that the reader with arrive at the same conclusion at me that
the decision to dismiss this case was politically motivated.
Japan, like the US and the UK, is not a signatory to
the Optional Protocol 1 http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/ccpr-one.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/HRIndicators/Ratification//Status_OP1_ICCPR.pdf of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CCPR/Pages/CCPRIndex.aspx;
accordingly, the Supreme Court was the last stop with respect to government
institutions capable of redressing the problem.
The Supreme Court of Japan has
failed to meet my expectations in performing its role in the governmental
system, which, like that of the USA, is based on the concept of the separation
of powers. Hence, publicity is the only tool left in the system of checks
and balances. The objective of this blog is to expose the details of this case
to public scrutiny to the extent possible.
Perhaps
this Odyssey through the netherworld of the Japanese judicial system this would
make good material for a screen play, but for now there is too much
non-fictional matter to be laid out. As will be described below, I am not the
first foreigner to have run into problems with administrative procedure and due
process, but the case described in this blog is perhaps the most egregious on
record. By refusing to accept the case and examine it on the merits, the
Supreme Court of Japan has effectively shut it away from the eyes of the public.
The case was, of course, a matter of substantial gravity for me and my family,
but it relates to public law and corruption in officialdom. Accordingly, the
Supreme Court of Japan, in failing to carry out its duty has left the burden of
informing the public of the deplorable state of affairs—including that the
Supreme Court appears to have failed to act on a valid petition without reason.
