The Supreme Court of Japan ruled on Wednesday that a condition imposed by an Act for acquiring Japanese nationality is unconstitutional, and confirmed the nationality of the plaintiffs. Each of the ten plaintiffs is a child who was born to a Filipino mother and later acknowledged by a Japanese father. They filed claims for Japanese nationality between 2003 and 2005, but the government turned down because the parents were not legally married in each case. 
According to Japan's Act on nationality, a non-Japanese child (under 20) who was after its birth legitimated by marriage and acknowledgment can acquire Japanese nationality by filing notification, with some requirements which the plaintiffs had already fulfilled. 
The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the condition 'legitimated by marriage' results in unreasonable distinctions to violate Article 14 of the Constitution of Japan, which guarantees equality under the law. The Supreme Court left effective the rest of this provision and accepted the plaintiffs' claims for Japanese nationality. The judgment pointed out recent changes in people's notions in Japan as to family life or parent-child relationship, and also referred to two conventions which Japan has ratified. 
There are estimated to be tens of thousands of children in similar situations in Japan and a considerable number overseas. 
Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobutaka Machimura on Wednesday made a comment about the judgment at a press conference. Machimura said, "This judgment, saying violation of Constitution, weighs so much. As a government, we should take it gravely, and we want to examine its content in detail and consider how to react." He added, "I have an impression, just hearing of it, that it's a reasonable judgment. Equality under the law is an important point of view." 
The ten plaintiffs filed their appeals through lawyers after Tokyo High Court dismissed their claims in February, 2007. 
Wednesday's judgment was a major opinion of ten among fifteen judges. The five dissenting thought more highly of the legislative power of the Diet. (See the table below.) 
The judgment is to say: 
One judge in the majority, who supported the conclusion, shared a view with the five dissenting: the distinction as to legitimacy is caused by non-existence of due legislation. This judge concluded that the Judiciary can remedy the lack, because it doesn't betray the will of the Legislation of the Diet as to this Act. 
Two dissenting judges of the five concluded that these distinctions are unconstitutional, but correction of it depends, in principle, on legislative measures by the Diet. 
The other opinion of three dissenting judges is contrary to the major opinion. They argued, for example, 

Have an opinion on this story? Share it!
Share this: 






This page is archived, and is no longer publicly editable.
Got a correction? Add the template {{editprotected}} to the talk page along with your corrections, and it will be brought to the attention of the administrators.
Please note that due to our archival policy, we will not alter or update the content of articles that are archived, but will only accept requests to make grammatical and formatting corrections.
Note that some listed sources or external links may no longer be available online due to age.
Got a correction? Add the template {{editprotected}} to the talk page along with your corrections, and it will be brought to the attention of the administrators.
Please note that due to our archival policy, we will not alter or update the content of articles that are archived, but will only accept requests to make grammatical and formatting corrections.

Japan's Supreme Court invalidates distinctions on nationality