Expert: “Is Dissolution Framework Constitutional?”

Legal expert warns that the State’s guidelines rely on unverified and time-barred claims as he questions the constitutionality of the dissolution framework

Tokyo, 29^th December 2025 – Published as an article in the Japanese newspaper Sekai Nippo. Republished with permission. Translated from Japanese. Original article. 

[Interview Feature] The Dark Side of the “Special Measures Law” Targeting the Family Federation (Part 1)

Suspicions of Unconstitutionality in the Guidelines for the Liquidation of the Religious Organization

Part 1 of Interview with Seishiro Sugihara, former professor at Musashino Women’s University and expert on issues of freedom of religion and constitutional law

by the Religious Freedom Investigative Team of the editorial department of Sekai Nippo

See part 2 of the interview: Selective Justice: Special Law Against One Faith

See also Court Rejects Media Narrative in Yamagami Case

See also Dissolution Case: Courts Must Not Reward Terror

See also Japan: Lawyers Accused of Wilful Dehumanization

On 20^th October, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), with the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (formerly the Unification Church) in mind, formulated the “Guidelines on the Liquidation of Designated Religious Corporations” (hereinafter, the “Guidelines”). While the immediate appeal against the Tokyo District Court’s dissolution order decision remain pending before the Tokyo High Court, the Guidelines were prepared in anticipation of a scenario in which the High Court upholds the lower court’s decision. However, Seishiro Sugihara (杉原誠四郎), former professor at Musashino Women’s University, points out that there are serious problems with both the ongoing legal procedures toward the liquidation of the religious organization and the newly issued Guidelines intended to supplement them.

‒ I understand that you submitted a public comment to MEXT regarding the draft Guidelines. What were your main points?

Even if a dissolution order has not yet been finalized, it is, in principle, permissible to establish guidelines for liquidation procedures in the event that such an order becomes final, so long as procedures toward dissolution are already underway.

However, to provide compensation for damages ‒ described as “specific unlawful acts, etc.” ‒ from the assets of the religious corporation slated for dissolution, based solely on damage reports submitted by individuals who self-identify as victims, would infringe upon property rights guaranteed by the Constitution and may therefore constitute a constitutional violation.

‒ What exactly does the term “specific unlawful acts, etc.” refer to?

“Specific unlawful acts, etc.” is defined in Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the Act on Special Provisions for the Operations of the Japan Legal Support Center to Facilitate the Prompt and Smooth Relief of Victims of Specific Unlawful Acts, and Special Provisions on the Disposal and Management of Assets by Religious Corporations (hereinafter, the “Special Measures Law”), which was enacted on 13^th December 2023, promulgated on 20^th December, and came into force on 19^th March of the following year.

The law defines the term as “unlawful acts that constituted the cause for a specific dissolution order request, acts that serve as grounds for the rescission of contract applications, other acts, and acts of the same kind, committed by the subject religious corporation or its believers or other related persons.” In other words, at the core are the alleged unlawful acts that prompted MEXT to request a dissolution order against the Family Federation.

However, the “harm” cited in the damage reports that MEXT treated as grounds for dissolution consists merely of damage claims made by individuals identifying themselves as victims. These do not represent acts that have been legally established as unlawful on the part of the religious organization.

‒ What do you mean by that?

MEXT applied for a dissolution order on the grounds that, over a period of approximately 43 years ‒ from around 1980 to around 2023 ‒ the Family Federation caused harm to just under 1,560 victims, with total damages exceeding 20.4 billion yen [ca. 130.5 million US dollars]. In other words, it asserted that there were 1,560 victims and approximately 20.4 billion yen in damages resulting from unlawful acts by the organization.

However, this assertion contains two major problems. First, it completely ignores one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law: the statute of limitations. An “unlawful act” refers to conduct that causes harm to others in violation of existing laws and regulations. Under Article 724 of the Civil Code, the legal effect of such acts expires after 20 years from the time of the act, at which point compensation can no longer be claimed. To invoke alleged harm from unlawful acts committed as far back as 43 years ago is to utterly disregard this principle.

‒ What is the second problem?

MEXT claimed that the Family Federation engaged in unlawful acts that were intolerable in their maliciousness, continuity, and organizational nature. However, in 2009, the Family Federation issued a compliance declaration [See editor’s note below] instructing its organization to refrain from donation solicitation practices that had drawn social criticism ‒ such as “unverified spiritual sales-style proselytization”, “proselytization linking donations to ancestral karma”, and “excessive donation solicitation” ‒ which had previously been recognized as unlawful acts by the organization or its related parties.

After that, only one case was recognized by the courts as constituting an unlawful act (one plaintiff, with damages awarded of approximately 4.76 million yen [ca. 30,000 US dollars]), and there have been no such cases at all since 2015. Accordingly, there is no continuity, and at present the organization is a religious corporation without legal issues.

Despite this, MEXT filed its dissolution order request by including, as “damage” from unlawful acts, lawsuits in which no unlawful acts were legally recognized ‒ even at the first-instance level ‒ and for which settlement payments had already been completed. These included in-court settlements (419 people, approximately 5.7 billion yen [ca. 36.5 million US dollars]) and out-of-court settlements (971 people, approximately 12.5 billion yen [ca. 80 million US dollars]). In other words, the figures of 1,560 victims and approximately 20.4 billion yen [ca. 130.5 million US dollars] in damages were nothing more than a manipulation of impressions.

‒ MEXT also submitted 261 written statements from former members to the Tokyo District Court.

A dissolution request must be based on current circumstances. MEXT should have been fully aware that damage statements alone from people claiming to be victims are insufficient to establish unlawful acts. Presumably, in an effort to gather new evidence, it focused on collecting damage reports. However, it has already become clear that these reports not only lack legal recognition as unlawful acts but also contain numerous false statements.

In this way, the unlawful acts (specific unlawful acts) cited by MEXT as grounds for the dissolution order request reach back into the past while ignoring statutes of limitation and involve conduct that can no longer be held legally accountable. After the compliance declaration [See editor’s note below] ‒ particularly since 2015 ‒ there have been no cases that have gone through procedures resulting in legally established findings. To nevertheless include such matters as subjects for compensation is inconceivable in a state governed by the rule of law. The Guidelines must therefore be fundamentally revised.

See part 2 of the interview: Selective Justice: Special Law Against One Faith

See also Court Rejects Media Narrative in Yamagami Case

See also Dissolution Case: Courts Must Not Reward Terror

See also Japan: Lawyers Accused of Wilful Dehumanization

Featured image above: Seishiro Sugihara (杉原誠四郎), former professor at Musashino Women’s University and expert on issues of freedom of religion and constitutional law. Photo: Sekai Nippo

[Editor’s note 1: The 2009 compliance declaration of the Unification Church of Japan (now the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification) was a formal commitment by the organization to reform its practices in response to longstanding public criticism and legal challenges.

The Unification Church in Japan had faced numerous allegations related to recruitment tactics and donation solicitation, termed “spiritual sales” (霊感商法) by a hostile network of activist lawyers who had declared the religious organization an enemy. These issues led to multiple lawsuits orchestrated by the activist lawyers and significant media backlash. This prompted the organization to take measures to restore its reputation and demonstrate compliance with legal and ethical standards.

The religious organization pledged to stop possibly unethical donation practices, including what the hostile network of lawyers claimed amounted to “pressuring members into making large financial contributions under spiritual pretexts.”

This was in response to accusations from the same activist lawyers that followers “were being manipulated into giving away substantial amounts of money or property.”

The Unification Church stated it would enhance internal oversight to ensure compliance with ethical and legal standards. Measures included better training for leaders and stricter guidelines for evangelization and solicitation of donations.

After this compliance declaration, there was a significant decrease in the number of lawsuits against the Unification Church – since 2015 called the Family Federation. The religious organization has used this as evidence that it has improved its practices and should not be subject to dissolution.]

Related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: Lawfare: State Uses Legal System in War on Faith

Also related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: MEXT’s Legal Spin and “Dissolution at All Costs”

Also related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: UN Report: Japan’s Lawfare Against Faith Minority

And also related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: Protesting No Transparency in Closed-Door Trial

More, related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: Dangerous Flaws in Dissolution Order Decried

Also related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: “Lawyers Lying and Shaming Japan” for 50 Years

And also related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: Japan Following the Way of China

And also related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: Japan’s Dissolution Case Echoes China’s Playbook

More, related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: Media/Legal Expert: Communism Behind Persecution

And more, related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

More, related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: Collusion to Rob Minority of Its Rights

And more, related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: State and Media Creating “Today’s Non-Citizens”

Still more, related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: Japan Copying China: State Seizure of Churches

And still more, related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: 12 Religious Freedom NGOs Denouncing Japan

More, related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: 4300 Abductions and Forcible Detentions

And more, related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: Japan: Families Fear for Graves of Loved Ones

Yet more, related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: Lawyers Manipulating, Coercing, Lying

Also related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: Kishida Follows Anti-Family Federation Minister

Also related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

Still more, related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: Malicious One-Sided Government Source Selection

Yet more, related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: Kishida’s Self-Defeating Populist Decisions

And still more, related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: Japan Urged to Make U-Turn

And yet more, related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: Dangerous Precedent to Crush Religions

Even more, related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: Japan Following the Way of China

Yet more, related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: Japanese Communists’ Final War

Still more, related to unconstitutional dissolution framework: Political and Social Activism behind Oppression