A Supreme Court decision may open the way to the dissolution of the religious organization by overturning decades of case law.
March 10, 2025
On March 3, the Supreme Court of Japan confirmed a non-penal fine against Chairman Tanaka of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (formerly known as the Unification Church and still often referred to with that name) for an alleged failure to respond to questions by the government.
Within the context of this decision, the Supreme Court held that torts under the Civil Code can be a “violation of laws and regulations” referred to in the grounds for dissolving a religious corporation mentioned by Article 81 of the Religious Corporations Act (“RCA”). Obviously, this statement is relevant to the case seeking the dissolution of the Family Federation filed by the government with the Tokyo District Court and currently awaiting a decision.
Historically speaking, this is a major change in the case law of Japan, which has excluded civil torts from the grounds for dissolution. Also, internationally speaking, as far as I am aware, there are no other democracies that opened such a broad gate for the dissolution of religious organizations.
This Supreme Court decision was made in alignment with the national campaign led by the anti-cult group National Network of Lawyers Against Spiritual Sales and journalists such as Eight Suzuki to blame the Family Federation after the assassination of the former Prime Minister Abe. The latter was assassinated by a man who claimed he wanted to punish him for being close to the Family Federation.
Thoroughly examined, this Supreme Court decision seems to have opened the “broad way” for the dissolution of the Family Federation. I note three ominous signs.
Under Article 81 of the RCA, a religious corporation can be dissolved if it commits an act:
a) which is clearly found to substantially harm public welfare;
b) in violation of laws and regulations.
The Supreme Court decided only on the interpretation of “laws and regulations” (item [b] above) and did not examine nor decide on whether the acts of the Family Federation were found to harm public welfare. The examination of item (a) is part of the dissolution lawsuit pending at the Tokyo District Court (Presiding Judge: Kenya Suzuki).
This Supreme Court decision showed a great deterioration of respect for religious freedom. Legally and technically, the dissolution of a religious corporation affects the religious freedom of individual believers indirectly, as they will be able to continue practicing their faith privately even after the religious organization is dissolved, whether there is a physical church or not.
However, as the dissolution deprives the affected religious organization of any and all assets, it has a great factual impact on the religious freedom of individual believers. In fact, two precedents paid mindful attention to this aspect. However, the Supreme Court decision of March 3, 2025 did not.
Aum Shinrikyo, which killed 29 people, was held to be dissolved in 1996 by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court at that time nevertheless paid reasonable and considerate attention to the religious freedom of its believers. It pointed out that, after the dissolution of Aum Shinrikyo, dissolution could cause obstacles to the believers’ position as they would experience difficulties in continuing religious acts by using the church property.
After all, the Court held “it is necessary to consider the importance of religious freedom as one of the spiritual freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and to carefully examine whether the Constitution permits such restriction (i.e., dissolution).”
On March 26, 2024, Tokyo District Court, the first instance of the non-penal fine suit against the Family Federation, almost literally followed the decision in the 1996 Aum Shinrikyo case.
The District Court held that “in view of the importance of religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, the applicability of the grounds for a dissolution order… should be carefully and strictly judged from the perspective of whether it is necessary and unavoidable for the subject religious corporation to be dissolved.”
So, two precedents took the religious freedom of believers well into account. However, the Supreme Court decision on March 3, 2025 did not.
It stated that, “A dissolution order shall have the effect of forfeiting the juridical personality of a religious corporation and shall not have any legal effect that prohibits or restricts the religious acts of a believer.”
This is disappointing and scary. The Japanese case law has paid distinct respect to the importance of religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution in the context of dissolution of religious corporations. However, the Supreme Court in March did not pay any attention to the religious freedom of believers. We can even detect the Supreme Court’s intention to allow the Tokyo District Court under Presiding Judge Kenya Suzuki to dissolve the Family Federation.
Source: bitterwinter.org
Commentaires