Errors in Your "Juminhyo"? How to Correct Official Resident Records in Japan and Why It Matters

Japanese Attorney at Law - Bengoshi L.L.

• 7 min read

The "Juminhyo" (住民票), or Certificate of Residence, is a fundamental official document in Japan, meticulously maintained by municipal governments under the Basic Resident Register Act (住民基本台帳法 – Jūmin Kihon Daichō Hō). It serves as official proof of an individual's residential status, address, household members, and other key details. Accuracy in the Juminhyo is paramount, as it forms the basis for a wide array of administrative services and legal procedures, including voter registration, national health insurance, pension enrollment, school enrollment, and even obtaining a driver's license. For businesses, the correct Juminhyo information of employees (including foreign nationals) is often crucial for employment, tax, and social security procedures.

Given its importance, what happens when there's an error or omission in a Juminhyo entry? This article explores the legal mechanisms for seeking corrections to these official resident records in Japan, focusing on the complexities that can arise when a municipality is unresponsive or refuses a request for correction.

Before delving into correction procedures, it's essential to grasp the Juminhyo system itself and its distinct yet interconnected relationship with another vital Japanese civil registration system: the "Koseki" (戸籍), or family register.

What is the Juminhyo?

The Basic Resident Register Act aims to provide a clear and unified record of residents' living situations to serve as a foundation for administrative affairs and to enhance resident convenience (Article 1, Basic Resident Register Act). Each municipality (city, ward, town, or village) maintains a Basic Resident Register for its inhabitants. A Juminhyo is an extract or certificate from this register pertaining to an individual or a household. Key information typically includes:

  • Full name
  • Date of birth
  • Sex
  • Relationship to the head of the household
  • Address
  • Date of moving to the current address
  • For foreign residents (since July 2012, when they were fully integrated into the Juminhyo system): nationality, status of residence, period of stay, etc.

The Interplay with the Koseki System

The Koseki system, on the other hand, is primarily focused on recording family lineage and vital events like births, deaths, marriages, and divorces. It is organized by family units. While distinct, the two systems are linked. For instance, when a child is born, a birth notification is filed under the Family Register Act (戸籍法 – Koseki Hō). This registration in the Koseki typically triggers the ex officio creation of a Juminhyo entry for the newborn by the relevant municipality, as stipulated in the Basic Resident Register Act Enforcement Order (住民基本台帳法施行令 – Jūmin Kihon Daichō Hō Shikōrei, e.g., Article 12, Paragraph 2, Item 1). This linkage aims to ensure consistency between family status records and residency records.

However, this very linkage can sometimes lead to complications, as seen in a hypothetical case (modeled after a real Supreme Court case, Judgment of April 17, 2009, Minshu Vol. 63, No. 4, p. 638, and related lower court decisions such as Tokyo District Court, May 31, 2007, and Tokyo High Court, Nov. 5, 2007) where a dispute arose over the Juminhyo entry for a child whose birth notification under the Koseki system was incomplete due to issues surrounding the declaration of whether the child was "legitimate" or "non-legitimate." If the Koseki registration is stalled, the Juminhyo entry might also be delayed or omitted, even if the fact of birth and residency is undisputed. (It's worth noting that the Ministry of Justice later revised its handling of such birth notifications in March 2010 to allow for more flexible processing).

Identifying Errors and Omissions: The Right to Request Corrections

The Basic Resident Register Act itself acknowledges that errors or omissions can occur. Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the Act provides that a person recorded in the Basic Resident Register, upon knowing of an error or omission in their own Juminhyo or that of a household member, "may make a representation (申出 – mōshide) to that effect to the mayor of the municipality" that maintains their register. This "mōshide" is the starting point for seeking a correction.

What happens if a municipality, after receiving such a mōshide, refuses to make the correction or simply fails to act? The path for legal challenge depends critically on the legal nature of this mōshide and the municipality's response (or lack thereof).

Is a Refusal to Correct a "Disposition" Subject to a Revocation Suit?

A key question is whether the mōshide under Article 14, Paragraph 2 constitutes a formal "application" (申請 – shinsei) in the administrative law sense, which would typically create a right for the applicant to receive a formal "disposition" (処分 – shobun, i.e., a decision like approval or rejection) from the administrative agency. If the mōshide is an "application" and the refusal to correct is a "disposition," then the individual could file a revocation suit (取消訴訟 – torikeshi soshō) under the Administrative Case Litigation Act (ACLA) to annul the refusal.

However, the Supreme Court of Japan, in its judgment of April 17, 2009 (Minshu Vol. 63, No. 4, p. 638), has taken a restrictive view. It held that a mōshide under Article 14, Paragraph 2 is merely an act to prompt the municipality to exercise its ex officio power to correct the register. The Court reasoned that the Act does not explicitly grant individuals an "application right" (申請権 – shinseiken) for such corrections, nor does it oblige the municipality to make a specific response (like a formal approval or denial) to such a mōshide.

Consequently, if the mōshide is not considered a formal "application," then a municipality's refusal to act upon it, or a notification that it will not make the correction, is generally not considered an "administrative disposition" subject to a revocation suit. It is viewed as a factual response indicating that the municipality will not exercise its ex officio authority in that instance.

This distinction is crucial because if the refusal is not a "disposition," a revocation suit is not an available remedy to challenge the refusal itself.

If a revocation suit against the refusal is not viable, what other legal avenues exist for an individual seeking to have their Juminhyo corrected or an entry made? The ACLA provides for "mandatory action litigation" (義務付け訴訟 – gimuzuke soshō).

Specifically, a "direct mandatory action litigation" (直接型義務付け訴訟 – chokusetsu-gata gimuzuke soshō) under Article 3, Paragraph 6, Item 1 of the ACLA might be considered. This type of lawsuit seeks a court order compelling an administrative agency to make a specific disposition that it has failed to make.

The act of a municipality making an entry (or correction) in a Juminhyo is itself considered an administrative disposition. The Supreme Court affirmed this in a judgment on January 21, 1999 (Hanrei Jihō No. 1675, p. 48), recognizing that such entries have direct legal consequences, for instance, by determining eligibility for voter registration.

Therefore, an individual could file a direct mandatory action suit seeking an order that the municipality make the specific, correct entry in their Juminhyo.

Key Requirements for a Direct Mandatory Action Suit

To succeed in a direct mandatory action suit under ACLA Article 37-2, the plaintiff must meet several requirements:

  1. "Grave harm that will be caused by the absence of the disposition" (処分がされないことにより生ずる重大な損害を生ずるおそれ): The plaintiff must demonstrate that they are likely to suffer "grave harm" if the requested Juminhyo entry (which is a disposition) is not made. This is a significant hurdle.
    • In the context of Juminhyo entries, "grave harm" could arise from various deprivations. For example, an incorrect or missing Juminhyo could impede voter registration, access to public services tied to residency, or create difficulties in various legal and social procedures. The cumulative effect of such disadvantages in daily life could be argued as constituting grave harm (as suggested in the Tokyo District Court judgment of May 31, 2007).
    • For an infant, as in the model case, the denial of a Juminhyo entry could prospectively affect access to child-related public services or, in the longer term, school enrollment and other rights tied to official residency. The Tokyo High Court judgment of November 5, 2007, however, was skeptical about "grave harm" for an infant many years away from voting age, in the specific context of that case.
  2. "No other appropriate means to avoid such harm" (その損害を避けるため他に適当な方法がないとき): This is a subsidiarity requirement. The plaintiff must show that the mandatory action suit is the only suitable way to prevent the harm. Given that a revocation suit against a refusal-to-correct is generally not available (as discussed above), this requirement may often be met in Juminhyo correction cases.

Merits of the Case: Demonstrating the Necessity and Legality of the Entry

Beyond the procedural requirements, the plaintiff in a mandatory action suit must convince the court on the merits that the municipality is legally obligated to make the requested Juminhyo entry. This would involve demonstrating:

  • The factual accuracy of the information sought to be entered or corrected.
  • The municipality's duty under the Basic Resident Register Act to maintain accurate records (Article 1, Article 3).
  • The municipality's power, and indeed duty, to make corrections ex officio when errors or omissions are known (Basic Resident Register Act Enforcement Order, Article 12, Paragraph 3).
  • The unreasonableness or illegality of the municipality's failure to make the correct entry despite the mōshide.

Practical Implications for Foreign Residents and Businesses in Japan

The accuracy of Juminhyo records has taken on even greater significance with the full inclusion of foreign residents in the Juminhyo system since July 9, 2012. Prior to this, foreign nationals were registered under a separate Alien Registration System. Now, foreign residents (those staying in Japan for more than three months, with certain exceptions) are issued a Juminhyo, which is essential for:

  • Visa and Status of Residence: Proving residency for various immigration procedures.
  • Employment: Required by employers for labor and social insurance processing.
  • Social Services: Accessing national health insurance, child allowances, and other municipal services.
  • Daily Life: Opening bank accounts, obtaining mobile phone contracts, getting a driver's license.

Furthermore, the Juminhyo is linked to the "My Number" (マイナンバー) system, Japan's individual social security and tax number system. An accurate Juminhyo is crucial for the correct assignment and functioning of the My Number.

For businesses employing foreign nationals, ensuring that their employees' Juminhyo details are correct is vital for smooth administrative processing and compliance. Any discrepancies can lead to delays or complications in various official procedures.

Conclusion

The Juminhyo is a cornerstone of an individual's official identity and legal standing in Japan. While the Basic Resident Register Act provides a mechanism for individuals to request corrections to errors or omissions, the legal path to compel such corrections, especially when a municipality is uncooperative, can be intricate.

The prevailing judicial interpretation suggests that a simple refusal to act on a correction request (mōshide) is not, in itself, a "disposition" that can be easily challenged through a revocation suit. Instead, individuals may need to pursue a direct mandatory action suit, seeking a court order to compel the municipality to make the correct entry. This requires demonstrating not only the merits of the correction but also that the absence of the correct entry would cause "grave harm" and that no other appropriate remedy exists.

For both individuals and businesses relying on the accuracy of these records, understanding these specific principles of Japanese administrative law and procedure is essential for effectively navigating the system and ensuring that official resident records accurately reflect reality.