There is no logical reason to change decades of case law and hold that civil torts, not crimes only, may be reasons to dissolve a religious organization.
March 11, 2025
In the first article of this series, I mentioned how the March 3 decision of Japan’s Supreme Court, stating that religious corporations may be dissolved for civil torts, not for crimes only, may affect the pending case filed by the government for the dissolution of the Unification Church (now called Family Federation for World Peace and Unification) currently awaiting decision at the Tokyo District Court.
In October 2022, former Prime Minister Kishida changed his view overnight and said that civil torts, not only crimes, can be interpreted as “violations of laws and regulations” mentioned as grounds for dissolution in the Religious Corporation Act (RCA). The Supreme Court on March 3, 2025 endorsed this flip-flop by Kishida.
Upon legal scrutiny, I found that the Supreme Court has no logic to hold that civil torts can be a “violation of laws and regulations” under the RCA. It seems that the Supreme Court just wants to open the gate for dissolution.
In Japan, the term “laws and regulations (法令)” is defined as “statutes, ordinances, or orders.” For two years and half after Kishida’s flip-flop, it has been debated in the context of the principle of legality whether the term “laws and regulations (法令)” is specific enough to justify a draconian restriction of religious freedom. The two simple Chinese characters “法令” appear too broad to justify such a restriction. In fact, the High Court in the Aum Shinrikyo case in 1995 held that it should be interpreted as limited to specific prohibition norms of certain acts such as the Penal Code.
However, the Supreme Court on March 3 held otherwise by stating that “an act constituting a tort under Article 709 of the Civil Code is an act that is regarded as illegal under the tort law, that is, an act that violates a certain legal norm (hence, an act that violates laws and regulations).” This is wrong and illogical.
In Japan, there is no question that torts are “illegal.” Thus, the gist of the Supreme Court decision is that:
1. illegal civil torts violate legal norm (法規範); and
2. they violate laws and regulations（法令）.
“Legal norm” (法規範) is not a legal term. It is very vague and defined nowhere. By using this obscure term, the Supreme Court seems to mean social norm, unwritten rules, and equity, not only written rules.
As such, the expression “legal norm” (法規範) is far broader than “laws and regulations” (法令) .
Thus, we cannot say that even if torts violate legal norm (法規範), they violate laws and regulations (法令). The Supreme Court made a logical leap by using a syllogism that even law students can easily recognize as wrong. It seems the Supreme Court had no courage to go against Kishida’s statement.
Lastly, this Supreme Court decision used one eerie, menacing word that can be interpreted to open the broad way for dissolution of the Family Federation.
In the context of whether the civil torts can be a ground for dissolution, the Supreme Court held that tortious acts could lead to a situation where they are clearly recognized as significantly detrimental to public welfare, and thus it is “entirely possible” to make it inappropriate to continue granting legal capacity to the religious organization.
As stated, this Supreme Court decision did not investigate nor did it decide on whether the acts of the Family Federation harm public welfare, as the major ground for dissolution.
Nevertheless, it said that dissolution based on the alleged torts is “entirely” possible. It was enough to say it is just possible. Therefore, the added term “entirely” can be negatively interpreted as signaling the Supreme Court’s hidden intention to open the broad way for dissolution of the Family Federation.
After the Abe assassination, it was reported that the assassin Yamagami allegedly claimed he killed the former Prime Minister because he had a grudge against the Family Federation, of which Abe was a friend. His real intention has remained unknown for almost three years due to belated criminal procedures.
Taking advantage of the situation, the anti-cult groups spread the paradoxical story that the Family Federation was to blame. Mass media hyped up the theory. Prime Minister Kishida followed. Now even the Supreme Court, which should stop such frenzy as a final fortress of human rights, seems to have given way. However, the fact remains that the Unification Church / Family Federation of Japan has not committed any crime in its sixty years of existence.
Source: bitterwinter.org
Comments