The 5-Billion-Yen Referendum
The city of Nishikawa (population 210,000) adopted a 'Public Works Referendum Ordinance' by citizen initiative. Under the Local Autonomy Act, 1/50 of registered voters (4,200) signed; the assembly passed it. The ordinance requires a mandatory citywide referendum before any single public works project costing ¥5 billion or more, and says a 'no' vote is binding on the mayor and assembly. It also requires independent cost estimates 90 days before the vote and at least two public hearings. The mayor plans a ¥6.8 billion flood-control canal and refuses to hold a referendum, arguing that the ordinance unconstitutionally binds future assemblies and that flood control is a prefectural matter. The prefecture says the city is responsible for the canal under a 2014 agreement. A citizens' group sues for a court order. The city's legal division notes that Article 94 guarantees local autonomy and that Article 92 provides for local public entities.
1. Assess the mayor's two arguments. Which is stronger, and what constitutional and statutory principles apply?
Read the worked answer
Article 94 gives local public entities powers to manage their affairs, and Article 92 establishes local autonomy; the Local Autonomy Act allows ordinances within law. The mayor's 'binds future assemblies' argument is weak as a general proposition: ordinances do bind later decisions unless amended. The stronger argument is institutional: the Local Autonomy Act gives the assembly exclusive budget power (Article 96), and a binding referendum may transfer that decision to the electorate, raising a conflict with representative democracy. The prefectural-responsibility argument is factual: the 2014 agreement points to the city, so the mayor cannot rely on it without evidence. On balance, the ordinance is most vulnerable on the budget-power ground, not on 'future assemblies.'
2. Distinguish a mandatory referendum from a citizen request for enactment under the Local Autonomy Act, and explain why the distinction matters for the lawsuit.
Read the worked answer
A citizen request for enactment (Article 74) is a petition by 1/50 of voters asking the assembly to enact, amend, or repeal an ordinance; the assembly must consider it, and the mayor may put it to a referendum if the assembly rejects it. A mandatory policy referendum, by contrast, is not expressly provided in the Local Autonomy Act; local referendums have generally been treated as advisory. The distinction matters because if the ordinance's 'binding' clause is read as advisory, the mayor's refusal is harder to challenge; if it is binding, the budget-power conflict is sharper.
3. If the court finds the ordinance valid, what should the city do next to avoid a constitutional problem?
Read the worked answer
If valid, the city should hold the referendum but frame the result as a political mandate, not a legal substitute for the assembly's budget vote; the assembly should still pass a budget resolution and record how it weighed the vote. It should publish the independent cost estimates and the prefectural cost-sharing agreement before the vote, and allow the assembly to amend the project scope. This preserves direct participation while avoiding a delegation of budget power that would invite a constitutional challenge.