How Can a Business Legally Block the Public Disclosure of Its Submitted Documents Under Japan's Information Disclosure Laws?

Japanese Attorney at Law - Bengoshi L.L.

• 5 min read

Japan's national and local Information Disclosure Acts grant the public a broad right to access government-held documents, promoting transparency and accountability. For businesses, however, this creates a significant challenge: what happens when a citizen files a request for government records that contain your company's sensitive financial data, trade secrets, or other confidential information?

While the disclosure laws contain exemptions to protect such information, a government agency may, after weighing the competing interests, decide to release the documents over your company's objections. Once confidential information is made public, the damage is irreversible.

Fortunately, Japan's legal framework provides a clear, step-by-step process for a third party—the business whose information is at stake—to challenge a disclosure decision and prevent the release of its documents. This article explains this process, including the critical emergency remedy of a court-ordered "stay of execution" that can halt the disclosure while the case is litigated.

The Case Study: Disclosure of a Religious Corporation's Financials

To illustrate the legal procedure, consider the following representative case.

The Factual Background

Under Japan's Religious Corporations Act, a religious corporation is required to file copies of its internal documents—including its officer list, asset inventory, and income/expense statements—with the prefectural governor's office. A citizen files a request with the prefecture under its local Information Disclosure Ordinance, seeking access to these financial documents for a specific religious corporation.

The corporation is formally notified of the request and files a strong objection, arguing that public disclosure of its internal financial affairs would harm its operations and violate the privacy of its members. Furthermore, it points to a "processing standard" (処理基準, shori kijun) issued by the national government's Cultural Affairs Agency, which advises prefectures that such documents should, in principle, be kept confidential to protect religious freedom.

Despite the corporation's objection and the national guidance, the prefectural governor, known for a strong pro-transparency policy, formally decides to disclose parts of the documents. The corporation is notified of this decision and is told that the documents will be released to the citizen in two weeks. The corporation must now act quickly to prevent this disclosure.

The process for challenging an impending disclosure is highly structured and time-sensitive. Attempting to sue before the agency makes its formal decision is premature and will likely fail. The legal battle begins only after the disclosure decision has been made.

Step 1: The Third-Party Consultation

When a government agency receives a disclosure request for documents containing information about a third party (the company), Article 13 of the national Information Disclosure Act (and equivalent provisions in local ordinances) requires the agency to notify the third party. This notification gives the company a formal opportunity to submit a written opinion stating its reasons for opposing the disclosure. This is a critical first step where the company must clearly articulate the potential harm that would result from the release of its information.

Step 2: The Two-Week Waiting Period

If the agency decides to disclose the information despite the company's objections, the law provides a crucial procedural safeguard. The agency is legally obligated to ensure there is a delay of at least two weeks between the date it makes the disclosure decision and the date it actually releases the documents to the requester.

This two-week window is not a mere courtesy. It is a legally mandated period designed specifically to give the objecting company time to seek judicial review before the information is made public.

The Litigation Strategy: A Revocation Lawsuit Plus a Stay of Execution

Once the company receives notice of the disclosure decision, it must immediately take two simultaneous legal actions in court.

Action 1: Filing a Lawsuit for Revocation (取消訴訟, torikeshi soshō)

This is the main lawsuit. The company files a complaint with the court asking it to legally overturn, or "revoke," the governor's decision to disclose the documents. This lawsuit will address the substantive question of whether the governor's decision was legal.

Action 2: Filing an Emergency Motion for a Stay of Execution (執行停止, shikkō teishi)

This is the most critical and time-sensitive step. Along with the main lawsuit, the company must file an emergency motion for a stay of execution. This asks the court to issue an immediate order prohibiting the government from releasing the documents while the main revocation lawsuit is pending. Without this stay, the government would be free to release the documents after the two-week window closes, rendering the main lawsuit meaningless.

Winning the Stay of Execution: Proving "Grave Harm"

To obtain a stay of execution under Article 25 of the Administrative Case Litigation Act, the company must convince the court that it will suffer "grave harm" (重大な損害, jūdai na songai) if the disclosure proceeds.

In the context of information disclosure, "grave harm" refers to damage that is serious and, most importantly, irreparable. The core of the argument is simple: once confidential information is made public, its confidentiality is lost forever. It cannot be taken back. The damage is inherently irreversible.

The company would argue that the public release of its internal financial documents and officer lists would cause grave harm by:

  • Damaging its reputation and the trust of its members and donors.
  • Exposing its leadership to potential harassment.
  • Revealing its financial condition and operational strategies, which could be exploited by adversaries.

Because this type of harm cannot be remedied by a later award of monetary damages, courts are generally very receptive to granting a stay of execution in these so-called "reverse FOIA" cases.

The Main Event: Arguing the Illegality of the Disclosure Decision

Once the emergency stay is granted, the focus shifts to the main revocation lawsuit. The company must prove that the governor's decision to disclose was illegal. This typically involves arguing that the information falls under one of the specific exemptions in the Information Disclosure Ordinance.

Argument 1: The Disclosure Violates the Spirit of Another Law

While the Information Disclosure Ordinance grants a general right of access, that right is not absolute. One of the strongest arguments for exemption is that a general disclosure would undermine the specific, limited disclosure regime established by another statute.

In our case, the Religious Corporations Act provides a very narrow and targeted system for inspecting the corporation's financial documents. It stipulates that these documents must be kept at the corporation's office and are only available for inspection by specific "interested parties," such as the corporation's own members, who can demonstrate a "legitimate interest."

The legal argument is that by creating this highly restricted access regime, the legislature implicitly intended that these internal documents should not be available for indiscriminate release to the general public. Allowing any citizen to obtain them through the Information Disclosure Ordinance would circumvent and nullify the specific, limited disclosure system designed by the Religious Corporations Act. Therefore, the governor's decision to make a general public disclosure is contrary to the legislative intent of the governing Act and is illegal.

Argument 2: The Disclosure is Contrary to National Policy

The company can also point to the "processing standard" issued by the national government's Cultural Affairs Agency, which advised against disclosure. While these standards are generally not considered legally binding on local governments in Japan's decentralized system, they serve as powerful evidence of a uniform national policy. A court may find that a governor's decision to deviate from this national standard without a compelling local reason is an unreasonable exercise of discretion.

Conclusion

Japan's information disclosure laws attempt to balance the public's right to know with the legitimate need to protect the confidential information of private individuals and businesses. The legal framework provides a clear, if demanding, process for a company to protect its sensitive data from improper disclosure.

The key to a successful challenge lies in leveraging the two-week statutory waiting period to act decisively. By immediately filing a revocation lawsuit and, crucially, a motion for a stay of execution, a business can freeze the disclosure process and secure the time needed to argue its case in court. The substantive legal battle will then focus on demonstrating that the information is exempt from disclosure, often by showing that a general release would violate the specific purpose and intent of the law under which the information was originally submitted to the government.