Japan: Legal Issues in the Unification Church’s Dissolution Verdict. 2. Religious Liberty

Unconvincingly, the court stated that the verdict did not violate freedom of religion or belief. It also applied the new law on donations retroactively.

By Nobuya Fukumoto

April 15, 2025

Article 2 of 4. Read article 1.

President Tomihiro Tanaka of Japan’s Family Federation at a press conference after the dissolution decision.

In the first article of this series, I mentioned three recommendations from the United Nations, asking Japan not to limit human rights on the basis of “public welfare.”

However, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) ignored these recommendations and filed a petition for a dissolution order against the Family Federation on the grounds of “public welfare.” Specifically, Article 81, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Religious Corporations Act, which MEXT cited as the legal basis for the petition, includes not only a “violation of laws and regulations” but also the requirement that the act in question be “clearly recognized as seriously harming the public welfare.” Thus, MEXT’s petition for a dissolution order was based on “public welfare.”

If a religious corporation is dissolved, it will no longer be able to use its religious facilities, and its followers will be unable to engage in religious expression at those locations. Therefore, filing for dissolution on the grounds of “public welfare” effectively results in restricting religious expression on that basis, which is a clear violation of the UN’s recommendations.

The Tokyo District Court, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court, held that a dissolution order has no legal effect of prohibiting or restricting the religious acts of believers. It further stated (p. 103) that the effect of the loss of juridical personality can be regarded as a reflexive effect of having juridical personality. The decision appears to suggest that the loss of such benefits does not constitute a restriction on freedom of religion or freedom of religious expression. 

Family Federation members marching for religious liberty in Nagano, July 21, 2024.

It should be noted that the Tokyo District Court did not entirely disregard freedom of religion. It acknowledged that the dissolution of a religious corporation may, in practice, hinder the exercise of religious freedom. As a result, the court stated (p. 102) that the dissolution of a religious corporation must be “necessary and unavoidable.” However, in this particular case—which can hardly be said to meet the “necessary and unavoidable” standard—the court nonetheless found grounds for dissolution. This suggests that the court’s reasoning was merely superficial, aimed at deflecting criticism that it had failed to give proper consideration to religious freedom.

In determining the illegality of the torts that were cited as grounds for dissolution, the Tokyo District Court adopted the standard set forth by the Supreme Court last year in a case involving donations. However, as expressly stated in the Supreme Court’s own judgment, this standard was based on the new donation law—the Act on Prevention of Improper Solicitation of Donations by Corporations, etc.—which was enacted by the Diet in December 2022 in response to growing public criticism of the Family Federation.

The building hosting Tokyo District Court. Credits.

The new law was extraordinary in that it imposed a duty on organizations receiving donations to exercise care so as not to impair the ability of the donors and their spouses and others involved to maintain their livelihood. As a result of referring to this law, the Supreme Court adopted a new standard under which a donation may be deemed unlawful if, by considering factors such as whether and to what extent the livelihood of the donors and their spouses and others was harmed, the act is found to exceed the bounds of what is socially acceptable.

However, this heightened duty of care was newly introduced by the donation law, and applying such duties retroactively to past conduct has drawn criticism from international legal experts. Despite this, the Tokyo District Court relied on the standard of illegality articulated by the Supreme Court to determine whether grounds for dissolution existed.

Applying the law retroactively.

It should be noted that this standard is based on “social norms,” which are unwritten and not prescribed by law, and the very adoption of such a standard for determining illegality constitutes, as mentioned earlier, a violation of Article 18(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Source: bitterwinter.org