RTI Rules for Other Countries

Japan

Law concerning the Disclosure of Information held by Administrative Organs

The legislation was adopted in 1999, but was to come into effect only in April 2001. It is argued that the two years gap was to enable the government to prepare its administrative mechanism for compliance with the procedures of the legislation.

The legislation seeks to ensure that the government is accountable to the people for its various operations, and to contribute to the promotion of a fair and democratic administration that is subject to the people’s accurate understanding and criticism.

The law is applicable to defined “administrative organs”. Organs within the Cabinet or organs under the jurisdiction of the Cabinet; organs defined in the National Government Organization Law (1948); certain organizations designated by Cabinet Order and the Board of Audit, are specified as administrative organs. The right of access is to administrative documents. The administrative document must have been prepared or obtained during the course of the duties by an employee of the organization.

Any person can make a request for disclosure of documents to the head of the administrative organization. The requester can be a corporation or other group, apart from individuals. The head of the organization is bound to assist the requester in making the request.

Six (6) exemptions (non-disclosure information) clauses are contained in one provision. Personal information of an individual; trade secrets and commercial information of a corporation or other entity (excluding the State and local public entities) or an individual; information voluntarily provided to an administrative organization with the condition that it will not be made public, are the first exemptions. But if this information is needed to protect a person’s life, health, livelihood, or property has to be disclosed. What come next are the standard exemptions related to information posing a risk to the security of the State; international relations; prevention, suppression or investigation of crimes; frank exchange of opinions or the neutrality of decision making in the internal process of the government (including interaction between organs of the State or local public entities) and the proper performance of affairs or business conducted by an organ of the State or local public entity.

If it is deemed by the head of the organization that particular public interest necessitates the disclosure of the information, the exempted information can be disclosed. Further, the exempted information can be severed from the document if it is easily excludable and if a meaningful document is remaining after the information is separated.

The decision on the request has to be made within thirty (30) days from the day the request is received. The time limit is extendable, if justifiable grounds exist, to a total of sixty (60) days. In case it is not possible to comply within this period of sixty (60) days also, because of the sheer bulk of documents to be processed, then access has to be provided for as much as is ready within the sixty (60) days and the rest has to be provided within a reasonable period which has to be specified to the requester when the part access is given. There is scope for third party representation before a decision is made.

Fees is required for making the disclosure request and the maybe additionally required for the implementation of disclosure. The fees has to be within the actual expenses incurred by the organization and consideration has to be given to make it as affordable as possible. Importantly, the legislation provides that the fees can be waived or reduced if the head of the organization deems that there is economic hardship or other special reason existing.

One appeal is decided by the Information Disclosure Review Board after reference from the head of the concerned organization. The law provides for the establishment, composition, members, their terms and conditions, the working of the Review Board, the powers of the Board and the management of the Board. There is a bar to further appeals beyond the Review Board under the Administrative Complaint Investigation Law. But law suits may be filed against a decision of disclosure by the Board or head of the organization to the district courts or to the court as provided by the Administrative Case Litigation Law.

There is no individual accountability for the information provider. No penal provision are provided against any erring head of the department for intentionally denying (or causing to deny) access to information by concealing documents or fraudulently tampering with the documents. To the contrary the only penal provision of the law is for penalizing members of the Review Board who do not keep the secrets that they come across during the course of their duty.

At the level of the organization the management of the administrative documents lies with the head of the organization. Above this is the Director-General of the Management and Coordination Agency who is responsible overall to secure the smooth application of the law by collecting, arranging and publishing a summary of the reports of the state of enforcement of the law by the organizations.