Dissolving Religious Corporations in Japan: Constitutional Problems. 3. Article 81 of the Religious Corporation Act

The provision is unconstitutional unless it is interpreted to mean that religious corporations can only be dissolved if found guilty of a crime.

By Setsu Kobayashi

July 21, 2025

Article 3 of 5. Read article 1 and article 2. Note: We have kept the parenthetical references of the Japanese original.

First page of the original text of the Constitution of Japan, including the Emperor’s Imperial Rescript. Credits.

The procedure for issuing orders to dissolve religious corporations should be subject to “strict scrutiny”

As mentioned in this series, the constitutional precedent established by the United States Supreme Court has deemed freedom of religion a “superior human right.” Government actions that restrict it must be subject to “strict constitutional scrutiny.” This is a standard understanding in Japanese constitutional theory, as long as human nature remains unchanged. (Yoichi Higuchi, “Constitution,” fourth edition, p.144).

Therefore, when the state seeks to impose adverse measures on religious organizations, it must: 1) have a “legitimate reason” established by law (especially one that protects the public interest to a high degree); and 2) make a judgment by the (strict) “due process” established by law. This is the established operating principle for the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, which constitute the parent law of Article 31, the general procedural provision on human rights in the Japanese Constitution (See “Black’s Law Dictionary,” 5th ed., p. 449.)

The procedure set out in Article 81, Paragraphs 1 and 7 of the Religious Corporations Act is unconstitutional

Article 81, paragraph 1, of Japan’s Religious Corporations Act states, “When the court finds that a cause which falls under any of the following items exists with regard to a religious corporation, it may order the dissolution of the religious corporation at the request of the competent authority, an interested person, or a public prosecutor, and by its authority.”

Then, in item 1, it states that dissolution may be ordered if “In violation of laws and regulations, the religious corporation commits an act which is clearly found to harm public welfare substantially.” Items 2 through 5 that follow are clearly on a different level from item 1 and are provisions for cases in which a corporation is “dormant” or “altered.” Therefore, even if these liquidations are carried out through administrative guardianship procedures by the state, they will not violate human rights. However, item 1 is equivalent to the state “liquidation” of a religious corporation engaged in spiritual activities, so strict guidelines should be followed.

Japan’s Constitution, the original text with the signatures of the Showa Emperor (Hirohito, 1901–1989) and the Ministers of State. Credits.

Unconstitutional law and unconstitutional application

The first issue we should address here is that the article says, “In violation of ‘laws and regulations,’” and not “In violation of the Criminal Law.” According to established precedents in the United States (whose laws inspired Article 20 of the Japanese Constitution) and Japan, religious corporations cannot be dissolved unless found guilty of a crime. This is because, when a crime, which involves the “highest public interest” that cannot be resolved between the parties involved, is committed, even the exercise of religious freedom, which is a superior human right, may be restricted. On the other hand, in the case of a tort under civil law, the parties involved can take responsibility for it in monetary terms, etc., or settle the matter through an agreement, as it concerns private interests. In this case, the public authority should defer to the superior human right.

Therefore, this article should be considered unconstitutional in the first place as an “overly broad regulation.” It is what is known as “unconstitutional law.” However, considering this, it is possible to narrowly interpret “laws” as “criminal law.” That has been the government’s position up until now. Therefore, a decision not to do so would be “unconstitutional application.”

In that sense, the decision handed down by the Supreme Court on March 3 is problematic. In a case challenging the fine imposed to the former Unification Church for failing to comply with an order from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) to submit documents under the Religious Corporations Act, the Supreme Court dared to make a significant change in precedent by stating that the “laws” in the “violation of laws and regulations” stipulated in Article 81, Paragraph 1 of the Religious Corporations Act also include the “Civil Code.” The decision of the Tokyo District Court on March 25 that followed and ordered the dissolution of the former Unification Church based on this interpretation of the law is also problematic.

Members of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (the former Unification Church) protesting against the dissolution action in Hiroshima, July 2024.

Violation of Article 31 of the Constitution

This interpretation can be said to violate the first half of the requirement (the issue of “basis”) of Article 31 of the Constitution (guarantee of due process of courts), which states that when the public authority seeks to restrict human rights, it must do so based on “just cause” and “fair procedures” established in advance by law.

Furthermore, the corporate dissolution procedures under the Religious Corporations Act also violate the second half of the requirement of Article 31 of the Constitution (the issue of “procedure”).

Article 81, paragraph 7 of the Religious Corporations Act stipulates that the procedure for issuing an order to dissolve a religious corporation under paragraph 1 of this article “shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Non-Contentious Cases Procedure Act.”

This is an attempt to use the state’s “guardianship administrative procedure” in a court of law to order the dissolution of a religious corporation, which is “a major procedure that concerns the existence of superior human rights.” Article 31 of the Constitution guarantees that when human rights (in this case, even superior human rights) are restricted, “proper” or fair procedures established in advance by law must be followed. Article 32 of the Constitution guarantees that everyone has the right to a trial in a fair court. In addition, Article 82 of the Constitution commands that “adversary proceedings” in cases where “human rights” are at issue must be “conducted publicly.”

The former Unification Church filed an immediate appeal against the decision to dissolve the church by the Tokyo District Court on March 25. However, if the Tokyo High Court also issues a final decision to dissolve the church, the execution of the original judgment would not be stayed even while a special appeal to the Supreme Court would be ongoing. A liquidator will then be appointed to take control of the church’s assets.

As an extension of the series of events that led to this, they may likely be sold to pay debts to the “victims.” As a result, the use of church facilities necessary for the religious activities of church members for worship and other purposes will be restricted, and the spiritual activities of the church and the religious freedom of individual believers will inevitably be significantly limited. It will be an extremely inconvenient situation, like living in a house that is being demolished.

Source: bitterwinter.org