Q: How are Japanese courts organized, what are their powers, and how does the public participate in the judicial process (e.g., lay judge system)?

The judiciary in Japan, as in any nation governed by the rule of law, plays an indispensable role in interpreting laws, resolving disputes, and upholding constitutional principles. Its organizational structure, the scope of its powers, and the mechanisms for public involvement are critical components of the nation's legal and democratic framework. This article provides an overview of the Japanese court system, from the Supreme Court down to more specialized tribunals, outlines their key powers, and examines how citizens participate in the judicial process, with a particular focus on the innovative lay judge system.

The Unified Court System and the Vesting of Judicial Power

The Constitution of Japan, in Article 76, paragraph 1, unequivocally vests "the whole judicial power" (shihōken - 司法権) in "a Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as are established by law." This establishes a unified, hierarchical system of ordinary courts, a significant departure from the pre-WWII Meiji Constitution, which featured a separate system of administrative courts. Today, the ordinary courts handle the full spectrum of legal disputes, including civil, criminal, and administrative cases.

Prohibitions on Extraneous Judicial Bodies

To safeguard the integrity and independence of this unified judicial system, Article 76, paragraph 2, lays down two important prohibitions:

1. No Special Courts (Tokubetsu Saibansho - 特別裁判所): "No extraordinary tribunal shall be established, nor shall any organ or agency of the Executive be given final judicial power." The first part of this clause prohibits the creation of "special courts"—tribunals set up outside the regular court hierarchy to try specific categories of persons or particular types of cases. The rationale is to ensure equality before the law and prevent the government from establishing potentially biased or politically influenced forums for adjudication. This does not, however, preclude the establishment of specialized courts within the ordinary judicial system. For example, Family Courts (Katei Saibansho - 家庭裁判所) and the Intellectual Property High Court (Chiteki Zaisan Kōtō Saibansho - 知的財産高等裁判所) are specialized but remain integral parts of the regular court structure, subject to the ultimate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Diet's power to establish an impeachment court for judges (Article 64) is an explicit constitutional exception.
2. No Final Adjudication by Executive Agencies: The second part of Article 76, paragraph 2, bars any executive organ or agency from being given final judicial power. While administrative agencies may conduct trial-like procedures, often referred to as "administrative adjudications" (gyōsei shinpan - 行政審判), as a first instance (e.g., by the Japan Fair Trade Commission in certain past antitrust matters, or by the National Personnel Authority in disciplinary cases against civil servants), their decisions must be subject to review by the ordinary courts. This ensures that the ultimate determination of legal rights and obligations rests with the independent judiciary. The "substantial evidence rule" (jisshitsuteki shōko hōsoku - 実質的証拠法則), where courts in reviewing administrative decisions might give deference to an agency's findings of fact if supported by substantial evidence, has been applied in some contexts but is generally viewed narrowly to avoid unduly restricting full judicial review.

A somewhat controversial provision exists in the Administrative Case Litigation Act (Article 27), which allows the Prime Minister to state an objection to a court's decision to suspend the execution of an administrative disposition. If such an objection is raised, the court cannot suspend the execution. This "Prime Minister's objection" (Naikaku Sōri-daijin no igi - 内閣総理大臣の異議) has been criticized by some scholars as an undue executive encroachment on judicial power, though it has been upheld in lower court decisions as a matter of legislative policy in exceptional circumstances.

Organization and Powers of the Courts

The Japanese court system is hierarchically structured, with the Supreme Court at its apex.

1. The Supreme Court (Saikō Saibansho - 最高裁判所)

• Constitutional Status: The Supreme Court is the highest court in Japan and the court of last resort (Article 81). It is explicitly established by the Constitution.
• Composition: It consists of a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices (Court Act, Art. 5). The Chief Justice is formally appointed by the Emperor after designation by the Cabinet (Constitution, Art. 6, para. 2). The Associate Justices are appointed by the Cabinet, and their appointments are attested by the Emperor (Constitution, Art. 79, para. 1). Justices must be at least 40 years old and possess extensive legal knowledge and experience. A certain number (currently at least ten) must have significant experience as judges, prosecutors, or practicing attorneys, while others can be appointed from among distinguished scholars or other fields, bringing diverse perspectives to the Court (Court Act, Art. 41).
• Popular Review of Justices (Kokumin Shinsa - 国民審査): In a unique feature designed to ensure democratic accountability, the appointment of Supreme Court Justices is subject to popular review. Each Justice faces a referendum at the first general election of members of the House of Representatives following their appointment, and again every ten years thereafter (Constitution, Art. 79, paras. 2 & 3). If a majority of voters favor dismissal, the Justice is removed from office. However, in practice, no Justice has ever been removed through this process, leading to debates about its effectiveness as an accountability mechanism.
• Operational Structure: The Supreme Court typically hears cases in "Petty Benches" (shō hōtei - 小法廷), usually consisting of five Justices. There are three such Petty Benches. Cases involving constitutional questions, the overturning of established Supreme Court precedents, or other matters of particular importance are heard by the "Grand Bench" (dai hōtei - 大法廷), which consists of all 15 Justices (Court Act, Art. 9, 10).
• Key Powers:
  • Adjudicatory Power: The Supreme Court's primary judicial function is to hear final appeals (jōkoku - 上告) from lower courts. Grounds for appeal are generally limited to alleged constitutional violations or grave errors in the interpretation of law or precedent (Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 312; Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 405). It is the ultimate arbiter of constitutional interpretation (Constitution, Art. 81).
  • Rule-Making Power (Article 77): The Supreme Court is vested with the power to "determine rules of procedure and of practice, and of matters relating to attorneys, the internal discipline of the courts and the administration of judicial affairs." These rules, such as the Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Criminal Procedure, have the force of law and are crucial for the practical functioning of the entire court system. The relationship and potential conflict between these judicial rules and statutes enacted by the Diet is a complex area of constitutional law.
  • Judicial Administration Power (Shihō Gyōsei-ken - 司法行政権): The Supreme Court is responsible for the overall administration of the entire judicial system, including personnel matters (assignment of judges), budget, and facilities. This power is exercised through the Judicial Conference (composed of Supreme Court Justices) and implemented by the General Secretariat of the Supreme Court (Saikō Saibansho Jimu Sōkyoku - 最高裁判所事務総局), which wields considerable influence.
  • Supreme Court Research Law Clerks (Saikōsaibansho Chōsakan - 最高裁判所調査官): These are typically highly experienced career judges seconded to the Supreme Court to assist the Justices by conducting in-depth research on appealed cases, analyzing legal issues, and helping draft opinions. They play a significant, albeit behind-the-scenes, role in the Court's decision-making process.

2. Lower Courts (Kakyū Saibansho - 下級裁判所)

The Court Act establishes four types of lower courts:

• High Courts (Kōtō Saibansho - 高等裁判所): There are eight High Courts located in major cities, along with six branches. They primarily function as intermediate appellate courts, hearing appeals from judgments of District Courts, Family Courts, and some criminal cases from Summary Courts. Certain types of cases, such as election disputes or patent infringement appeals (to the specialized Intellectual Property High Court in Tokyo), may originate at the High Court level. Cases are typically heard by a three-judge panel.
• District Courts (Chihō Saibansho - 地方裁判所): These are the principal courts of first instance with general jurisdiction over most civil and criminal matters. There is one District Court in each of Japan's 47 prefectures, plus four branches. While many cases are heard by a single judge, more serious or complex cases (including those requiring lay judge participation) are handled by a three-judge panel.
• Family Courts (Katei Saibansho - 家庭裁判所): These courts, established in 1949, have jurisdiction over domestic relations cases (such as divorce, child custody, inheritance, and adult guardianship) and juvenile delinquency cases. They employ conciliation procedures extensively and aim to resolve family disputes in a less adversarial manner. They are located alongside District Courts.
• Summary Courts (Kan'i Saibansho - 簡易裁判所): There are over 400 Summary Courts nationwide. They handle minor civil cases (where the amount in controversy is below a certain statutory limit) and less serious criminal offenses punishable by fines or lesser penalties. Proceedings are typically simpler and quicker, conducted by a single Summary Court judge.

Judges of lower courts are appointed by the Cabinet from a list of persons nominated by the Supreme Court (Constitution, Art. 80, para. 1). They are appointed for a term of ten years, with eligibility for reappointment. This reappointment system has sometimes been a subject of debate concerning its potential subtle influence on judicial independence, though in practice, reappointments are very common.

Public Participation in the Judicial Process: The Lay Judge System

A significant development in Japanese judicial practice has been the introduction of direct citizen participation in criminal trials.

1. Historical Background and Judicial Reform:
   Japan had a jury system for certain criminal trials from 1928 until its suspension in 1943. The post-war Constitution did not explicitly mandate citizen participation, though Article 3, paragraph 3 of the Court Act leaves open the possibility of establishing a jury system by law for criminal cases. The major impetus for current forms of participation came from the comprehensive Judicial System Reform initiative of the early 2000s, which aimed to make the justice system more accessible, transparent, and trusted by the public.
2. The Lay Judge System (Saiban-in Seido - 裁判員制度):
   The centerpiece of these reforms was the Act Concerning the Participation of Lay Assessors (Lay Judges) in Criminal Trials, enacted in 2004 and implemented in May 2009.
   • Purpose: The stated purpose of the saiban-in system is to enhance public understanding of and confidence in the criminal justice system by having citizens directly involved in the trial process (Article 1 of the Act).
   • Scope: It applies to trials in District Courts for certain serious criminal offenses, such as those punishable by death or life imprisonment, or cases where a victim died as a result of an intentional criminal act.
   • Composition of the Trial Panel: Typically, a trial panel consists of three professional judges and six lay judges. Lay judges are citizens selected randomly from voter registration lists who meet certain eligibility criteria.
   • Role of Lay Judges: Lay judges participate actively throughout the trial. They listen to evidence, can question witnesses and the defendant (through the presiding judge), and then deliberate alongside the professional judges on both the defendant's guilt or innocence (findings of fact) and, if a conviction results, the appropriate sentence. Decisions are made by a majority vote of the nine-member panel, but importantly, any guilty verdict or the imposition of a particular sentence must be supported by at least one professional judge in addition to the overall majority (and for a guilty verdict, usually also by a majority of the lay judges present).
   • Constitutional Scrutiny: The lay judge system faced several constitutional challenges, arguing, for example, that it violated Article 76 (vesting judicial power only in judges), Article 32 and 37 (right to trial by an "impartial court"), or Article 18 (freedom from involuntary servitude for lay judges). The Supreme Court, in a landmark Grand Bench judgment on November 16, 2011 (Heisei 23), upheld the constitutionality of the system. The Court reasoned that citizen participation in the judiciary is not prohibited by the Constitution, that the system is designed to ensure a fair trial by incorporating judicial expertise with citizen perspectives, and that the civic duty of serving as a lay judge does not constitute prohibited "involuntary servitude." The Court also later affirmed that defendants do not have a constitutional right to opt out of a lay judge trial (Supreme Court, First Petty Bench, January 13, 2012 [Heisei 24]).

Conclusion: A Structured Judiciary with Evolving Citizen Engagement

The Japanese court system is a well-defined hierarchy with the Supreme Court at its apex, possessing significant powers of adjudication, rule-making, and judicial administration. While professional judges remain the backbone of this system, the introduction of the lay judge system represents a profound shift towards greater citizen involvement in the administration of criminal justice. This reform aims not only to draw upon diverse community perspectives in serious criminal trials but also to foster deeper public understanding and trust in the judiciary as a whole, thereby strengthening the foundations of the rule of law in Japan.