Freedom of Information: A Comparative Legal Survey - Federation of ...

Pursuant to section 36 of the Act, the minister shall prepare an annual report on implementation, to be
laid before the House of Representatives and Senate. The report shall contain information on the number
of applications for access received, granted, deferred and refused, in whole or in part, the exceptions relied
upon to refuse access and how often they were used, and information about internal reviews and appeals,
and their outcomes. Each public body must submit relevant information to the minister to assist in the
preparation of this report. The last report available online dates from the fi rst quarter of 2005. 193
J apan
Introduction
The Constitution of Japan, adopted in 1946, 194 does not include a specifi c guarantee of the right to
information, although it does provide general protection for freedom of expression, at Article 21, which
guarantees freedom of “speech, press and all other forms of expression” and prohibits censorship. As
early as 1969, the Supreme Court of Japan established in two high-profi le cases the principle that shiru
kenri (the “right to know”) is protected by the Article 21 guarantee of freedom of expression. 195
Despite this, it was another 30 years before the national Law Concerning Access to Information Held by
Administrative Organs 196 (RTI Law) was fi nally passed, in May 1999, after a long struggle by civil society.
The Law came into effect two years later, in April 2001. Access to public information was seen as crucial
to exposing the failures of the government, about which there was growing concern in Japan at the time
as the economic miracle started to falter, and in addressing the wall of offi cial secrecy faced by the public.
This is refl ected in the fi rst article, on the purpose of the Law, which states that the goal of openness is to
ensure, “accountability of the Government to the citizens for its various activities, and to contribute to the
promotion of a fair and democratic administration that is subject to the citizens’ appropriate understanding
and criticism.” The adoption of the national law was preceded, and to some extent prompted, by the
adoption at lower levels of government of numerous right to information regulations. Indeed, by the time
the national law was adopted in 1999, over 900 municipalities had already adopted such regulations. 197
The Japanese Law is broad in its application and, with certain exceptions, includes good process guarantees
and has a reasonably tight regime of exceptions, although this could be further narrowed. It could be
strengthened in a number of other ways, notably by adding in a proactive duty to publish and by moving the
oversight body out of the Cabinet Offi ce.
Public bodies in Japan currently handle approximately 50,000 information requests per year. Implementation
has, for the most part, been pretty positive. In fi scal year 2006, about 40% of all requests were met with
full disclosure of the requested information and about 90% of all requests resulted in either full or partial
disclosure. A revision of the RTI Law, which came into force on 1 April 2005, led to the adoption of separate
legislation governing the appeal body. 198 Among other things, the scope of responsibility of the appeal body
was expanded to include appeals fi led under the Personal Information Protection Law, a new statute which
came into effect on the same date.
69