Japanese court rules ban on election campaigning by minors under 18 unconstitutional

(Tokyo = Yonhap News) Correspondent Jo Seong-mi = The court ruled that Japan's ban on election campaigning by minors under the age of 18 is unconstitutional.

According to the Tokyo Shimbun on the 26th, the Tokyo District Court (District Court) ruled the day before that the provision of the Public Official Election Act, which prohibits election campaigns by minors along with punishment provisions, violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression.

In Japan, rulings on the unconstitutionality of laws can be made even at the district court level.

In February of last year, when the four plaintiffs were high school students, they filed a lawsuit claiming that the Public Official Election Act, which prohibited minors from participating in election campaigns, was unconstitutional, and requested damages of 100,000 yen (about 860,000 won) per person from the state.

Japan's Public Official Election Act prohibits minors under the age of 18 from directly campaigning for elections or guardians using minors for election campaigns, and violations are punishable by imprisonment for up to one year.

Korea's Public Official Election Act also does not allow minors under the age of 18 to campaign.

The Japanese government argued that the regulation was justified, saying it was intended to prevent children and adolescents from being caught up in unfair election campaigns.

However, the court ruled that it was difficult to find grounds for prohibiting minors from participating in election campaigns based on their own interests or values ​​by law, and that the prohibition could not be recognized as a necessary and reasonable measure.

However, the ban on using people under the age of 18 for election campaigns was ruled constitutional, saying it blocks the possibility of their guardians or others engaging in election campaigns against their will.

The court did not recognize the state's failure to fulfill its legislative obligations and dismissed the claim for damages on the grounds that it was difficult to believe that the National Assembly had an opportunity to review the validity of the relevant regulations when the plaintiff gave up the election campaign.