Positive and Integrated Research on "Temporary Orders (Kari-no-kyusai)" as an Effective Remedy for a Violation of a Right and/or Interest20205876

大法院认为，日本宪法第32条中的“斋班”与第82条中的“斋班”含义相同。但是，前者应被解释为比后者具有更广泛的含义。如果一个中立和独立于其他权力的法官根据公平程序主持审判，那么这应被视为一种司法职能。要理解的是，公平程序的核心包括通知、听证和平等。如果暂停行政处分被视为一种司法职能，那么总理的否决权就违反了这一司法职能，进而侵犯了诉诸法院的权利。一种解释认为，这一制度符合宪法。这一立场指出，需要这一制度来应对总理可能面临的“紧急情况”。然而，很难想象在紧急状态下需要暂停行政处分的情况。这一立场不能成为总理否决权符合宪法的基础。如果国务总理的否决权被废除，就有可能通过“行政诉讼法第37条第3款”的行政诉讼程序，对“涉及国家安全的情报（信息公开法第5条第3款）”进行审查。第5条第1款)，要求披露信息。许多人可能认为这种做法是不可接受的。其他人可能认为这一程序可能只存在于上述情况中。然而，即使在这种情况下，该制度的违宪性仍然存在。因此，在上述情况下，一种可能的方法是允许立即上诉（sokuji kokoku），使用“karino gimuzuke”决定暂停执行处分。

The term "saiban" used in Article 32 of the Japanese Constitution and "saiban" used in Article 82 are interpreted by the Supreme Court as having the same meaning. However, the former should be interpreted as having a broader meaning than the latter. If a judge that is neutral and independent of other powers is to preside over trials under fair procedures, then this should be considered a judicial function. It is to be understood that within the core of fair procedure entails, notice and hearing, and equality.If a stay of an executive disposition is considered a judicial function, then the Prime Minister's veto power violates this judicial function, and furthermore, violates the right of access to the courts. One interpretation suggests that this system in accordance with the constitution. This position states that the system is needed to correspond to possible "emergency situations" that the Prime Minister may face. However, it is difficult to imagine a case that would require a stay of an executive disposition in a state of emergency. This position cannot be a basis for the constitutionality of the Prime Minister's veto power. If the Prime Minister's veto power is abolished, it is possible to inspect "Information Concerning National Security (Information Disclosure Law, Article 5, No 3)" through an administrative litigation procedure referred to as "Kari-no-gimuzuke (Administrative Litigation Law Article 37, para. 5, No. 1)" which requires the disclosure of information. Many may think that this procedure may not be acceptable. Others may think that this procedure may exist only in the instance of the above-mentioned case. However, even in this case, unconstitutionality of the system still exists. One possible way in the above case, then, is to allow an immediate appeal (sokuji kokoku) of a stay of an executive disposition using the "Kari-no gimuzuke" determination.