Supreme Court is ready to dissolve the Family Federation

Supreme Court is ready to dissolve the Family Federation

The Supreme Court decision on FFJ Chairperson Tanaka’s penalty seems to have opened the broad way for FFJ’s dissolution. Aside from its decision to include civil torts in the interpretation of “violation of laws and regulations”, we note two ominous signs in the decision. 

1.  Ignorance of Religious Freedom  

This Supreme Court decision showed great deterioration in terms of religious freedom. 

Legally and technically speaking, the dissolution of a religious corporation is indirect to the religious freedom of individual believers as they will be able to continue their faith for their own, whether there is a physical church or not. 

However, as the dissolution deprives the subject religion of any and all assets, it would have a great factual impact on the religious freedom of individual believers. 

Two precedents paid good attention to this religious freedom, but the Supreme Court decision on March 3, 2025 held otherwise. 

1.1   1996 Supreme Court on Aum Shinrikyo

Aum Shinrikyo which killed 29 people was held to be dissolved in 1996 at the Supreme Court. 

But the Court nevertheless paid a reasonable and considerate attention to the believers. 

It held as follows: 

 “Considering that when a dissolution order of a religious organization becomes final and binding, the liquidation procedure will be carried out. 

As result, property belonging to the religious organization, which was used for religious acts, such as a religious facility, will be disposed of. 

Therefore, there is a possibility that the continuation of religious acts carried out by the believers using such property may be hampered. 

As such, even if legal restrictions on religious organizations do not have the effect of legally restricting the religious acts of religious believers, it may cause some obstacles to such acts. 

Thus, it is necessary to consider the importance of religious freedom as one of the spiritual freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and to carefully examine whether the Constitution permits such restrictions.”

1.2  2024 Tokyo District Court on the Family Federation

The presiding Judge Kenya Suzuki at the Tokyo District Court, the first instance of the pending non-penal fine suit of the Family Federation Chairperson Tanaka, almost literally followed the above 1996 Aum Shinrikyo case on March 26, 2024. 

He ruled as follows: 

 "Considering that when a dissolution order of a religious corporation becomes final and binding, the liquidation procedure may be carried out. 

There is a possibility that the continuation of religious acts carried out by the believers using the property belonging to the said religious corporations may be hampered. 

Therefore, In view of the importance of religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, the applicability of the grounds for a dissolution order prescribed in the Religious Corporations Act, including Article 81(1)(i), should be carefully and strictly judged from the perspective of whether it is necessary and unavoidable for the religious corporation in question to be given a dissolution order to deal with the acts it has committed”.

1.3  2025 Supreme Court on the Family Federation 

 As above, two precedents took the religious freedom of believers well into account. 

However, the Supreme Court decision on March 3, 2025 as the final third instance on the above 1.2 case made a great deterioration in terms of religious freedom. 

It held as follows: 

"A dissolution order shall have the effect of forfeiting the juridical personality of a religious corporation and shall not have any legal effect which prohibits or restricts the religious acts of a believer."  

This is ominous and scaring. 

Though the Supreme Court in 1996 clearly mentioned “importance of religious freedom as one of the spiritual freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution”, 29 years later, it ignored the religious freedom and said “dissolution order shall not have any legal effect which restricts the religious acts of a believer”.    

2. Possibility for Dissolution  

Also, this Supreme Court decision on March 3, 2025 used one ominous word that can be interpreted to open the broad way for dissolution of the Family Federation. 

In the context of whether the torts under the Civil Code can be a ground for dissolution, it held as follows: 

 “An act constituting a tort under Article 709 of the Civil Code involves the infringement of another person's rights or legally protected interests through intent or negligence. 

Therefore, it is entirely possible that such an act could lead to a situation where it is clearly recognized as significantly detrimental to public welfare, making it inappropriate to continue granting legal capacity to the religious organization involved”. 

This decision on Chairperson Tanaka’s penalty did not investigate nor did it decide on whether the acts of the Family Federation would be detrimental to public welfare, as the major ground for dissolution. 

Nevertheless, it said the dissolution based on the alleged torts is “entirely” possible. 

Pending the examination on whether the acts of the Family Federation harm public welfare, the Supreme Court did not have to say the dissolution is “entirely” possible. It should have said it is just possible. 

The added term of “entirely” can be interpreted as the Supreme Court’s hidden intention to open the way for dissolution of the Family Federation. 

End