Diet executives speak with Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, second from right, after submitting their proposal on securing an adequate number of imperial family members on June 10. (Takeshi Iwashita)

EDITORIAL: True Diet ‘consensus’ needed before revising Imperial House Law

（社説）皇室典範改正　「総意」の名に値するか

Diet executives compiled the “consensus of the legislative branch” regarding the securing of a self-sustaining number of imperial family members before submitting it to Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi.

The document found two measures acceptable.

One was allowing female imperial family members to retain their status after marriage.

The other would permit adoption, which had been banned under the Imperial House Law, of patrilineal male descendants of 11 former imperial family branches.

The government will now write legislation based on the draft to revise the Imperial House Law and seek passage in the current Diet session.

But while the document was supposed to represent a consensus, six of the 13 Diet blocs, including the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, the largest opposition party in the Upper House, the Japanese Communist Party and Reiwa Shinsengumi, expressed reservations or opposition to the proposal.

While the CDP found the female family member measure acceptable, it did not express an opinion on the second measure on the grounds that it was incomprehensible.

The latest case represents a huge change from nine years ago when all but one of the nine parties approved the special exemption law to allow then Emperor Akihito to abdicate.

Since it is extremely doubtful that the latest proposal is a consensus, the Diet must avoid insisting on passing the bill in the current session.

At the very least, it is necessary to confirm the complete removal of all factors that might serve as a precedent for future imperial succession.

The reason a real consensus was not formed is because adoption was approved without adequate discussion on the appropriateness of insisting that imperial succession be possible only for sons from the patrilineal side.

Lower House Speaker Eisuke Mori’s comment on June 8 focused attention on the problems that exist with that stance.

He said that a son born to an adoptee would have the right to succeed to the Chrysanthemum Throne.

But that possibility for imperial succession was not included in the document compiled by the Diet executives, leading some opposition parties to call the comment a major betrayal.

Mori later explained that he only stated an interpretation of the current laws.

The only principle stated in the Constitution concerning imperial succession is that it should be dynastic.

Those who emphasize having sons of the patrilineal side ascending the Chrysanthemum Throne stress the tradition.

The Imperial House Law was enacted during the Meiji Era (1868-1912) to establish the practice of sons from the patrilineal side succeeding and removing any possibility of women ascending the throne.

Reflecting on discussions in the Imperial Diet at that time, emphasis was placed on public sentiment that prioritized males as well as the fact that women did not have the right to vote.

It would not be exaggerating to say included within the tradition was the thinking of “dansonjohi” (predominance of men over women).

In our past editorials, concerns were raised about whether the adoption proposal would gain wide public understanding.

Many of the editorials of other papers have also raised doubts.

Article 1 of the Constitution states that the emperor’s position derives “from the will of the people.”

But is the adoption measure in line with that desire?

There is increasing support in public surveys for female or matrilineal emperors.

Rather than close off that possibility, a forum for discussions that will convince a wide segment of the population must be established at once.

The government must submit a draft of the main points of the legislation to the Diet executives as well as the bill outline draft to all voting blocs.

The Diet must independently examine the legislation in future discussions to ensure that it has not gone beyond the latest framework.

--The Asahi Shimbun, June 12

皇族数の確保策をめぐり、衆参両院の正副議長が「立法府の総意」をまとめ、高市早苗首相に伝えた。
　（１）女性皇族が結婚後も皇族の身分を保つ（２）皇室典範で禁止されている皇族の養子縁組を可能にし、旧１１宮家の男系男子を対象にする――の両案を「了」とした。政府は、これを踏まえて皇室典範改正案などを策定し、今国会での成立をめざす。
　ただ、「総意」には全１３党派中、参院野党第１党の立憲民主党や共産党、れいわ新選組など６党派が慎重・反対の立場を示した。立憲は（１）を「了」としたが、（２）は「理解不能」として賛否を示さなかった。天皇退位特例法をめぐる９年前の「総意」が１党を除く９党派の了承を得たのとは格段の違いがある。
　これで「総意」と言えるのか極めて疑わしく、今国会中の成立にこだわる拙速な立法化は避けてもらいたい。最低限、将来の皇位継承のあり方を縛る要素は一切排除すると確認することが必要だ。
　真の総意が形成されないのは、皇位継承をめぐる「男系男子への固執」が正当なのかをきちんと議論しないまま、養子を認めたからだ。
　その問題性を浮かび上がらせたのが、森英介衆院議長の８日の発言だ。養子の子について「男の子が生まれれば皇位継承権を持つ」と語った。総意案にはない皇位継承のあり方に踏み込み、野党からは「重大な裏切り」との声も上がった。森議長は「現行法の解釈を述べた」と釈明した。
　憲法が定める皇位継承の原則は「世襲」というだけだ。男系男子を重視する論者は「伝統」を強調する。しかし、男系男子を確立し女性を排除した明治期の皇室典範制定の議論を振り返れば、男性尊重の国民感情や女性に参政権がないことなどが重視されていた。伝統自体に「男尊女卑」の考えが埋め込まれていると言っても過言ではない。
　社説は、養子案に「国民の幅広い理解を得られるとは言い難い」と疑問を呈してきた。各紙の社説の多くも懐疑的だ。憲法１条は天皇の地位は「日本国民の総意に基づく」とする。養子案は国民の総意にかなうだろうか。世論はむしろ、女性・女系天皇を望む声こそ高まっている。その道を閉ざすことなく、広く国民が納得できる議論の場を速やかに設けてもらいたい。
　政府は法案の骨子案を正副議長に、要綱案を各会派に示すことになっている。今後の議論を見据え、法案が今回の枠組みを逸脱したものになっていないか、国会は主体的に精査することが求められる。

(2026年6月12日)