Page:Constitutional imperialism in Japan (IA constitutionalim00clemrich).pdf/45

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

VI. The Judiciary

The Japanese Constitution has comparatively little to say on the subject of judicature, and only in very general statements. It is doubtless for the best not to have the judiciary system too strictly limited by hard and fast constitutional provisions. It is wise that merely “glittering generalities” are given and that the details of organization are left to more flexible arrangements. Article LVII reads as follows:

The Judicature shall be exercised by the Courts of Law according to law, in the name of the Emperor. The organization of the Courts of Law shall be determined by law.

Ito explains this in the following terms:

The Sovereign is the fountain of justice, and His judicial authority is nothing more than a form of the manifestation of sovereign power. Therefore judgment shall be pronounced in the name of the Emperor, the judicial authority in this respect representing Him in His sovereign power.[1]

Concerning judges it was merely provided that

The judges shall be appointed from among those who possess proper qualifications according to law. No judge shall be deprived of his position, unless by way of criminal sentence or disciplinary punishment. Rules for disciplinary punishment shall be determined by law.[2]

Ito gives the following explanation:

In order to remain impartial and fair in trials, the judges ought to occupy an independent position, free from the interference of power, and should never be influenced by the interest of the mighty or by the heat of political controversies.[3]

Satoh[4] calls attention to one striking illustration of the

  1. ↑ Op. cit., p. 101.
  2. ↑ Article LVIII.
  3. ↑ Op. cit., p. 105.
  4. ↑ Op. cit., pp. 45, 46.

(355)

This article is issued from Wikisource. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.