We hope the administrative complaint investigation system, in which citizens can ask the central and local governments to terminate or redress administrative actions, will be improved, thereby improving fairness and convenience.

In the current Diet session, the revised Administrative Complaint Investigation Law was passed with the approval of all parties except the Japanese Communist Party. It marks the first drastic revision of the law since it was enacted in 1962. The Internal Affairs and Communications Ministry aims to enforce the revised law in fiscal 2016.

Compared to lawsuits, the system offers the advantage of making it easier and less costly for citizens to seek procedures. In fiscal 2011, about 30,000 public petitions were filed with the central governments, while local governments received about 18,000. The types of grievances covered by the system include social security and tax issues, recognition of work-related accidents, public information disclosure and traffic violations.

The main focus of the revised law is the introduction of a system to appoint examiners at the section-chief level and other officials who are currently not involved in such administrative matters. This is a logical move to improve neutrality in examining petitions.

At present, officials already involved in dealing with administrative problems are sometimes put in charge of such work. Thus the possibility of the original administrative actions being reviewed has been low, and the fairness of such a system has been questioned.

The central government reconsidered its position and accepted petitioners’ complaints in 10.6 percent of such cases in fiscal 2011, while the same rate among local governments was 2.8 percent. These figures are said to be lower than those of other countries.

3rd-party panel to help out

The revised law adopts a two-step process in conjunction with the administrative complaint investigation system. A third-party panel of experts, known as an administrative complaint investigation council, will be established to judge the propriety of the administration’s examinations of complaints.

However, the revised law stipulates that the third-party panel will not handle complaints if similar ones have already been dismissed many times, as it would be inefficient for the panel to examine every complaint. This is a proper system.

The revised law also gives consideration to the usefulness of the administrative complaint investigation system for citizens. The period during which citizens can file complaints with central and local governments has been extended from “within the current 60 days” after the original administrative actions were decided to “within three months.”

The revised law also includes a stipulation that each government should make efforts to set a “standard examination period,” a yardstick for reaching a conclusion on each case.

Complaint cases that have taken more than a year for the central government to examine have accounted for an average of 10 percent of all cases, compared to an average of around 20 percent for local governments. We hope the administration, bearing in mind the establishment of the standard examination period, will speed up the procedures.

There are some problems with the new system that must be resolved before its launch.

Some have pointed out worries that officials or superiors involved in administrative actions could unfairly interfere with the duties of the newly appointed examiners. It is important that each government, as a whole, devises a system to ensure the independence of examiners.

In the mid and long term, it will also be worth discussing a plan to cultivate personnel who can serve as examiners.

Small local governments may be concerned that they cannot cope well with the volume of complaint cases with only a few officials.

It is important for the ministry to put emphasis on mapping guidelines for the new system, training officials for such purposes, and supporting local governments.