Japan Supreme Court upholds damages against city over defamation by ex-Mayor Ishimaru
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Diplomat
5 days ago
- The Diplomat
Philippine Legislators Clash Over the Impeachment of Vice President Duterte
The Supreme Court will soon decide whether to affirm or reverse its controversial July 25 ruling that nullified the impeachment. Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte attends a ceremony with staff from the Philippine election commission at the Office of the Vice President in Manila, Philippines, February 3 2025. The Philippine Senate has voted to archive the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte despite the earlier appeal of the House of Representatives to defer the voting and wait until the issue is resolved by the Supreme Court with finality. Duterte was impeached by the House of Representatives in February for 'betrayal of public trust' over her alleged anomalous use of confidential funds and conspiracy to assassinate the First Family. The case was transmitted to the Senate but the latter only tackled the impeachment during the last week of its term in June and remanded the issue back to the House of Representatives. During this period, the Duterte camp petitioned the Supreme Court to look into the issue. On July 25, the Supreme Court ruled that the impeachment case against Duterte was unconstitutional based on a procedural flaw. The House of Representatives has appealed the decision and questioned the imposition of new rules for impeaching officials. 'If these rules had existed earlier, we would have followed them,' said the House of Representatives in a statement. 'But to invent them after the fact, and strike down a valid impeachment for not satisfying them, is not only unfair – it is constitutionally suspect.' A spokesperson of the House of Representatives said that the Senate should consider the appeal before voting to dismiss the impeachment. 'We call on our dear Senators to exercise prudence and patience, and allow the judicial process to reach its rightful conclusion,' the spokesperson said. But the Senate proceeded with the vote and cited the Supreme Court ruling to justify its action. 'No one, including the Senate, can substitute its opinion over the Court's in any matter concerning the Constitution,' a majority senator said in his explanation of vote. Senate President Chiz Escudero said that the court decision should serve as a guide for legislators on how to properly proceed with the impeachment process. 'For the rule of law to prevail, the High Court must act as a compass, and not as a political cheerleader impartially applying the law by calling out violations not swayed by public opinion or political allegiance,' he said in his statement. Escudero also castigated those who have ulterior motives in pursuing the impeachment. 'Let today's verdict be a stern and unequivocal warning to anyone who would dare use the Senate as their personal battering ram to further their personal political ambitions,' he added In response to the Senate vote, House Speaker Martin Romualdez criticized the rushed dismissal of the impeachment complaint and defended the decision of House legislators to impeach Duterte. 'We have been met with personal attacks, sweeping accusations, and a narrative that seeks to reduce a solemn constitutional duty into mere power play,' he said in a statement. 'It undermines public trust in the very tools of democratic checks and balances.' Some analysts believe the archiving of the impeachment is not equal to dismissal since there is a possibility for the Senate to revive the issue should the Supreme Court reverse its decision. But it's rare for Congress to resurrect an archived bill or issue and the majority vote in the Senate showed that Duterte has enough numbers to avoid conviction. Public attention will now focus on the Supreme Court, on whether it will affirm or reverse its controversial ruling. Some legal experts opined that the ruling was based on erroneous facts which could give chance for the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision, especially if it calls for a public hearing and allows all parties to argue their case. The Supreme Court ruling and the Senate vote have sparked protests and loud condemnations from various stakeholders, including former justices, legislators, and academic institutions. Anti-corruption advocates have bemoaned the new obstacles imposed by those in power to hold erring officials accountable. Duterte and her supporters are framing the impeachment as a partisan move by those who wanted her disqualified from running in the 2028 election; but they conveniently disregard the fact that a broad range of groups and sectors have rallied to support the impeachment complaint as part of the people's demand to eradicate corruption in government. The next flashpoint in Congress is the deliberations for the 2026 budget bill. Last year, Duterte refused to answer queries from legislators which delayed the passage of the budget of her office. Legislators can still refile the impeachment case against Duterte next year if the persistent corruption allegations are not adequately addressed. Duterte scored a huge win in the Supreme Court and the Senate but it only heightened the clamor for truth and accountability. The impeachment may be shelved for now but the fight against corruption continues.
Japan Today
5 days ago
- Japan Today
Judge blocks Trump's birthright order nationwide in fourth such ruling since Supreme Court decision
FILE - Demonstrators holds up a banner during a citizenship rally outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, May 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File) A federal judge in Maryland late Thursday ruled President Donald Trump's administration cannot withhold citizenship from children born to people in the country illegally or temporarily, issuing the fourth court decision blocking the president's birthright citizenship order nationwide since a key U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June. U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman's preliminary injunction was expected after the judge said last month she would issue such an order if the case were returned to her by an appeals court. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to her later in July. Since June, two other district courts, as well as an appellate panel of judges, have also blocked the birthright order nationwide. An email to the White House for comment was not immediately returned. Trump's January order would deny citizenship to children born to parents living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. Boardman in February issued a preliminary injunction blocking it nationwide. But the June ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court upended that decision and other court rulings blocking the order across the nation. The justices ruled that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but they didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. In her ruling Thursday, Boardman certified a class of all children who have been born or will be born in the United States after February 19, 2025, who would be affected by Trump's order. She said the plaintiffs in the lawsuit before her were 'extremely likely' to win their argument that the birthright order violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which includes a citizenship clause that says all people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to U.S. jurisdiction, are citizens. They were also likely to suffer irreparable harm if the order went into effect, she wrote. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Japan Times
6 days ago
- Japan Times
Philippine Senate shelves VP Duterte's impeachment case
Philippine senators on Wednesday voted to shelve an impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte after the country's top court ruled it as unconstitutional. The motion to archive — approved by 19 of 24 senators — adheres with the Supreme Court ruling voiding the complaint against Duterte, Senate Majority Leader Joel Villanueva said during livestreamed proceedings. Four senators voted against the motion and one abstained. The move renders the impeachment complaint against the vice president as "dead' unless the top court reverses its ruling, according to Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano. That means the Senate won't proceed with the impeachment trial against the vice president, which had been set to begin this month, in yet another relief for the embattled politician.
