Dissolving Religious Corporations in Japan: Constitutional Problems. 5. Conclusion: The Action Against the Unification Church is Unconstitutional

The proceedings are against Japan’s Constitution and international obligations. They are based on either or both “unconstitutional law” and “unconstitutional application” and conducted in violation of the rules of fair trial.

By Setsu Kobayashi

July 23, 2025

Article 5 of 5. Read article 1, article 2, article 3, and article 4. Note: We have kept the parenthetical references of the Japanese original.

Original text of the Japanese Constitution. Credits.

Summary

Humans are the only living creatures on Earth that have religion. Since ancient times, religion has often led to conflict with state power. Religion’s essence is the devotion to a subject that transcends the power of the state. For this reason, freedom of religion has been called “the forerunner of all human rights.”

In liberal democracies, there is an established constitutional principle that public authorities may not interfere with religious activities, which relate to the essence and dignity of an individual’s personality, “unless a crime is committed.”

Now, as if under pressure from anti-Unification Church public opinion, which grew in the wake of the mysterious assassination of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, then Prime Minister Kishida petitioned the Tokyo District Court for an order to dissolve the church. The court decided on March 25 of this year, ordering the dissolution. The church is currently appealing its case to the Tokyo High Court.

The state has made many unconstitutional decisions during this process.

First, a constitutional theory is established in all liberal democratic countries stating that freedom of religion is a so-called “superior human right.” The state can restrict it only when there is “a serious infringement of the public interest” (in other words, a “crime”). Only the “least oppressive means” should be used to remove that harm. This is the principle of “strict constitutional scrutiny.”

In this respect, the former Unification Church, unlike Aum Shinrikyo, which committed indiscriminate murders and was ordered to dissolve, has not committed any crimes. The church has lost thirty-two civil lawsuits over donations but has already taken responsibility for them. In addition, the church was ordered to dissolve after being found to have, “in violation of laws and regulations, harmed public welfare substantially.” To come to this conclusion, the court also relied on cases in which the church returned money out of consideration for the peace of mind of former members who had sued under the guidance of professional deprogrammers. However, this is an “overbroad regulation.” What theoretical basis exists for holding the church legally responsible for facts already resolved through settlement? This has not been explained.

Article 81, paragraph 1 of the Religious Corporations Act states that a dissolution order may be issued when “in violation of ‘laws and regulations,’ public welfare was harmed substantially.” This is indeed a typical example of “over-broad regulation,” as the concept of what is “illegal” in the text is too broad, almost like a “trap” created by the state. It should be regarded as “unconstitutional law” because the text is unconstitutional.

Furthermore, it should be possible to interpret and apply this provision in a narrower sense, reading the words “laws and regulations” as meaning the “Criminal Code.” However, the Kishida Cabinet chose not to do so. The change in official interpretation and subsequent decisions of the judiciary are a clear case of the so-called “unconstitutional application.”

Former Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. Credits.

In addition, the procedure for dissolving a religious corporation has serious structural flaws. Article 81, paragraph 7, of the Religious Corporations Act stipulates that this procedure shall be conducted under “the Non-Contentious Case Procedures Act.” In essence, this is due to a legislative policy that requests that proceedings to dissolve religious corporations should be handled through a procedure that prevents and resolves disputes through “guardianship” by the state (i.e., administrative action that provides backing and “protection”), such as the one used in the determination of the sharing of marital expenses in a divorce.

However, in this case, the decision-making process for the order to dissolve religious corporations is not, in its essence, “guardianship.” For the members of the former Unification Church who have followed their conscience and continued to live their faith without committing any crimes, the church, which is the very foundation of their lives, has now been forced into a situation that is tantamount to being “destroyed” by the state. As a result, if the church is dissolved, its members will be socially stigmatized, and its assets (such as its chapels and operating funds) will come under the control of a liquidator appointed by the state. In other words, dismantling the foundation of the believers’ lives under state control is now underway.

This relationship is not a “guardianship oversight” by the state, which is the essence of non-contentious case proceedings. For the church and its believers, they are being suspected, cornered, and even forced to change their way of life by the state because of their conscience. This situation is nothing less than a human rights struggle against the state by its citizens who have been, so to speak, attacked by the government. It is a legal dispute (a typical “legal dispute,” or “lawsuit”). Therefore, it is not a “non-contentious case.”

If this is the case, it is time for the church to be granted the “right to a fair trial” guaranteed to all citizens by Article 32 of the Japanese Constitution. First, “legal due process” is guaranteed by Article 31, the general provision governing Article 32. In other words, it ensures that human rights will not be taken away without a “legitimate reason” and a “fair procedure” established in advance by law.

Furthermore, a “fair trial” refers to an “adversary proceeding” in a “public” courtroom per Article 82 of the Constitution, conducted by judges whose independence is guaranteed by Article 76, paragraph 3, of the same Constitution.

In fact, as a concrete drawback of this closed procedure, lawyers for the church have protested that several statements submitted by the government (MEXT) when seeking an order to dissolve, as evidence to prove the former Unification Church’s maliciousness, were fabricated. These facts were revealed during cross-examination in a closed courtroom but are being ignored. The procedure to dissolve the church by the state is proceeding behind closed doors, away from the reach of the sovereign people.

Under the Constitution of Japan, the exercise of state power through such unconstitutional procedures should not be permitted against anyone, not just the former Unification Church.

Members of the Unification Church protesting against the dissolution action in Nagoya, July 2024.

Conclusion

The legal procedures in the Japanese courts to finalize the order to dissolve the former Unification Church are unconstitutional.

There is no “highly legitimate reason” or “due process” justifying a restriction on the supreme human right of religious freedom (Article 20 of the Constitution). This violates Articles 31 (guarantee of statutory due process), 32 (guarantee of a fair trial), and 82 (guarantee of a public and adversary trial) of the Japanese Constitution. Furthermore, it also violates Article 18, paragraph 1 (freedom of religion) and Article 14, paragraph 1 (right to a fair trial) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which also means that Article 92, paragraph 2 (obligation to comply with international treaties) of the Constitution is violated.

Therefore, this series of procedures is unconstitutional and invalid under Article 81 (power of constitutional scrutiny) and Article 98, paragraph 1 (supreme law) of Japan’s Constitution.

Source: bitterwinter.org