5th
Japanese 'Nationality Law' Found Unconstitutional
I’m happy to see that the Japanese are continuing to question their own laws. Every country should be compelled to check on its own laws often enough that it ensures that the majority of its citizens feel the current disposition of the people of the land is being properly served. Note, I said ‘majority’ because, let’s face it, no one can be pleased all of the time. That’s just a fact of life. This time the good guys won.
Nationality Law unconstitutional / Says out-of-wedlock children are Japanese
The Yomiuri Shimbun
Ruling in favor of all 10 plaintiffs in two cases, the top court found it unconstitutional that Japanese citizenship was denied to children who were born out of wedlock to Japanese fathers and Filipino mothers, even though the fathers later acknowledged paternity. The plaintiffs currently hold Philippine nationality.
The Supreme Court’s Grand Bench ruled a clause of the Nationality Law requiring parents be married before their children are granted Japanese citizenship violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality under the law.
Ten of the 15 justices, including presiding Justice Niro Shimada, ruled the plaintiffs should be granted Japanese nationality.
The ruling marks the eighth time since World War II that the Supreme Court has found part of a law unconstitutional. Wednesday’s ruling is expected to pressure the government to revise the Nationality Law.
Tens of thousands of children of foreign nationality in a similar situation as the plaintiffs are said to live in Japan. The ruling is expected to lead to a rush among those affected to obtain Japanese nationality.
The plaintiffs are boys and girls aged 8 to 14, mostly living in the Kanto region. They originally applied to the justice minister for Japanese nationality, but their requests were turned down. They then filed suits seeking Japanese citizenship between 2003 and 2005.
A particularly contentious point in the suits was whether the clause of the Nationality Law that bars children born out of wedlock to foreign mothers, but who later were proved to have been fathered by a Japanese, from obtaining Japanese citizenship is discriminatory.
The Tokyo District Court and the Tokyo High Court issued split rulings.
In its ruling, the top court said that in 1984, when the law was revised, “There may have been compelling reasons that marriage between a Japanese father and foreign mother was used as a measure of their child’s ties with Japan.”
The top court argued, therefore, that at the time the law did not violate the Constitution.
However, the number of children born out of wedlock has been growing, while family structures and lifestyle have become more diverse. Given that, the top court said, “The provision does not necessarily match today’s reality, if diversity and changes of attitudes toward family life and the parent-child relationship are taken into consideration.”
The top court ruled the denial of nationality for children who have Japanese fathers, and are acknowledged by their fathers, based only on the fact their parents are not married irrationally discriminates against them.
However, three justices—Kazuko Yokoo, Osamu Tsuno and Yuki Furuta—offered dissenting opinions, saying: “In a case of children born out of wedlock, the naturalization system determining an individual’s ties with Japan is rational. Thus, making [their parents’] marriage a requirement is also rational.”
(Jun. 5, 2008)