Latest news with #ThirdPettyBench
Yomiuri Shimbun
a day ago
- Business
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Public Assistance Ruling: Govt Bears Heavy Responsibility for Failing to Justify Reductions
Public assistance is an essential system for ensuring that people in need can live with peace of mind. A court ruling emphasized the need for careful consideration when changing the amount of benefits in the system. In lawsuits filed by recipients who argued that significant reductions in welfare benefits violated the Public Assistance Law, the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the reductions were illegal and ordered cancellation of the cuts. The ruling has become finalized. Similar lawsuits have been filed in 29 district courts nationwide, and this ruling sets a precedent for those cases. The central and local governments will likely need to recalculate appropriate amounts not only for the plaintiffs in the lawsuits but also for all other recipients at the time of the cuts. The standard amounts for welfare benefits serve as a benchmark for other support programs, such as reductions and exemptions for childcare fees and national pension insurance premiums. These programs may also be affected. The Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry announced cuts of up to 10% in the standard amounts for food and utilities support welfare benefits during a period from 2013 to 2015, resulting in a total reduction of ¥67 billion. This measure was said to be to respond to the declines in prices and wages following the 2008 collapse of U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers. The main point of contention in the litigations was the appropriateness of the 'deflation adjustment' reflecting the rate of price declines. The Supreme Court said that 'the revised rates in the deflation adjustment based solely on the rates of price fluctuations lacked consistency with expert knowledge,' concluding that 'the health, labor and welfare minister's judgment exceeded or abused discretion and was therefore illegal.' As for the series of the lawsuits, the cuts were ruled illegal in seven cases at the high court level. The government is considered to have broad discretionary authority, and courts generally tend to respect its judgment. In that sense, the top court's strict ruling can be described as significant. The review of public assistance was carried out after the Liberal Democratic Party included it in its campaign pledges for the 2012 House of Representatives election. Is there any suspicion that the calculations were distorted to achieve a predetermined reduction? The government should reexamine the decision-making process for the reductions and fulfill its accountability to the public. Welfare benefits in the public assistance program are received by 1.65 million households, half of which are single-person elderly households. The number of applications for welfare benefits has increased for five consecutive years, probably because more households find it difficult to make ends meet due to the COVID-19 pandemic and rising prices. The Constitution states, 'All people shall have the right to maintain the minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living,' and imposes on the state the duty to protect this right. Since reductions in welfare benefits directly affect people's lives, clear reasons for cuts are necessary. The government must enhance the transparency of the system. (From The Yomiuri Shimbun, June 28, 2025)
2 days ago
- Politics
Japan Top Court Finds Welfare Benefit Cuts Unlawful
News from Japan Jun 27, 2025 16:07 (JST) Tokyo, June 27 (Jiji Press)--Japan's Supreme Court ruled Friday that the government's cuts to welfare benefits in 2013-2015 were unlawful, marking a significant victory for welfare recipients about a decade after lawsuits were filed over the matter. Ruling on appeals against decisions by Osaka and Aichi high courts, the top court's Third Petty Bench, presided over by Justice Katsuya Uga, revoked the welfare cuts but dismissed plaintiffs' damages claims. Lawsuits on the welfare benefit reductions have been filed with 31 district courts in 29 prefectures around Japan, and the latest Supreme Court decision is expected to influence similar cases nationwide, likely resulting in rulings in favor of plaintiffs. END [Copyright The Jiji Press, Ltd.] Jiji Press
The Mainichi
25-04-2025
- Politics
- The Mainichi
Japan Supreme Court upholds damages against city over defamation by ex-Mayor Ishimaru
TOKYO -- Japan's Supreme Court on April 23 upheld two lower court rulings that ordered the city of Akitakata, Hiroshima Prefecture, to pay damages for defamation caused by social media remarks by former Mayor Shinji Ishimaru, rejecting an appeal by the city. In its ruling, the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court overseen by Presiding Justice Kimihiro Ishikane upheld earlier district and high court decisions that had ordered the city to pay 330,000 yen (approx. $2,300) in damages for defamation of assembly member Atsuko Yamane, finalizing the municipal government's defeat in the case. The decision was unanimous by the five justices present. After serving as mayor of Akitakata, Ishimaru ran in the Tokyo gubernatorial election in July 2024, placing second in the race. According to the lower court rulings, in November 2020, when Ishimaru held the mayoral post, he repeatedly posted claims on social media saying that when he discussed the state of the assembly with council members, Yamane threatened, "If you make enemies of the assembly, it will be impossible to pass policies." The Hiroshima District Court ruling in December 2023 found that the alleged statement was not recorded in audio data of the meeting, and determined the posts were untrue. Since the posts were made using the mayoral account, the court recognized the act as an official duty. The Hiroshima High Court in July 2024 supported this judgment. Under Japan's State Redress Act, if a local government employee such as a mayor is found to have caused damage to another person unlawfully, the municipality, not the individual official, is liable for compensation.
