JAPAN - The latest decision by the Supreme Court is a historic judgement of unconstitutionality that took changes in Japanese family values into consideration.
The top court's Grand Bench reached the decision Wednesday, finding that a provision in the Civil Code stipulating that the inheritance share for a child born to unmarried parents shall be one half of that of a child born in wedlock violates the Constitution, which guarantees "equality under law."
The decision said that reasonable grounds to make such a distinction have been lost.
In 1995 the Supreme Court judged the same Civil Code provision to be constitutional. We think the top court reversed the decision because it seriously considered changes in circumstances surrounding children born out-side of marriage.
According to the decision, the Supreme Court listed conditions to be taken into consideration, including national traditions, social circumstances and public sentiment, in deciding the nation's inheritance system. On that basis, the Grand Bench said these conditions change with the times, so the rationality of the system should be constantly reviewed.
What the Supreme Court said is quite natural if we consider the point that the Civil Code is a law closely connected to the daily lives of the people.
In recent years, the number of children born out of wedlock has been increasing. The term "shinguru maza" (single mother) has taken root in society. So-called de facto marriages are not uncommon now and the social view to perceive children born out of wedlock as different has probably withered considerably.
In residence certificate and family register notations describing relationships to the head of the household or parents, the distinction of a child born out of wedlock has already been abolished.
In major Western countries such as the United States and Europe, the abolition of inequalities in inheri-tance has progressed considerably. Japan is the only major advanced nation that still has discriminatory regulation.
The Supreme Court's unconstitutionality judgment was made in line with the current international legal climate.