EDITORIAL: Information disclosure

A team studying how to bring greater transparency to government has drafted a proposal for a radical revision of the law on access to information, which took effect in April 2001. The proposal of the team, which answers directly to the minister in charge of government revitalization, is effectively the minister's proposal.

The proposal calls for bold changes, such as eliminating charges for information disclosure and spelling out in the revised law that one purpose of the law is to guarantee the public's right to know.

The ruling Democratic Party of Japan has so far stumbled and muddled along on various fronts. But the party has proven its mettle concerning this proposal.

One noteworthy point is that the proposal calls for a review of the broad discretionary power that currently rests with government organs in their handling of information pertaining to the nation's foreign policy, defense and security.

Under the current law, the heads of administrative organs first decide whether disclosing the information would pose a threat to national security and other interests. When the party requesting the information takes the case to court, the court only examines the legitimacy of the government's decision. This usually results in a court ruling in favor of the government.

The proposal says the system must change so that the courts can directly examine whether the government's claim of potential danger is valid. The National Police Agency, the Defense Ministry and the Foreign Ministry, among others, have voiced opposition to the proposed changes, arguing that only experienced experts can be trusted to judge the situation correctly. Their argument is hardly convincing.

Because the current law is not designed to facilitate examination by the judiciary, the situation we have is that information remains undisclosed to the public as a rule.

The minister's proposal aims to change this system. But the intent is not merely to negate the government's judgment on matters that require expert knowledge of policy issues. All the government has to do is to convince the court by presenting irrefutable proof of why the information cannot be disclosed.

The proposal also calls for the introduction of "in-camera examination" of documents by judges. This will enable them to see the information contained in the documents and determine whether it can be disclosed.

Under the current law, the judges can only make assumptions based on information they obtain from auxiliary materials.

Such a situation is like having an itch one cannot reach. And this is why the information disclosure system is not supported by the people and has even invited mistrust and suspicions.

We believe allowing in-camera examination by the judges will not only add much-needed substance to lawsuits concerning information disclosure but also serve to prod government ministries and agencies and their advisory councils on information disclosure into doing a better job.

There is no doubt that the ministries and agencies will renew their resistance when the proposal is written into a bill. The DPJ will need to negotiate with other parties.

But the most important thing to bear in mind is the fact that all information possessed by administrative organs is public property that must be shared with the people.

Now that regime changes can actually happen in Japan, both the ruling and opposition camps are aware of the danger and the undesirability of the government's monopolization of information.

The government will come under democratic control only when official documents are written and maintained appropriately--and disclosed to the public.

What should be done to build a nation where the people are truly sovereign? We hope each political party will keep asking itself this question and use their political clout in the right way to improve the nation's information disclosure system.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Aug. 25