CNIC Statement: Government’s alarming revision of the public comment system aims to exclude the people’s opinions
April 4, 2025
The Public Comment system is a procedure that was legislated by the Amendments to the Administrative Procedure Act in June 2005, “aiming to ensure the fairness of and to improve transparency of administrative management by soliciting opinions from a wide range of the general public, thereby protecting the rights and interests of citizens.”[i]
Recently, it has been reported several times that the government is concerned about the surge in the number of public comments submissions[ii]. The reports said that large numbers of submissions with the same content, opinions generated by AI, and submissions that only say “No” to the proposed policy, have been submitted. It has also been reported that there is a heavy burden on the staff who are processing the submissions. Meanwhile, it can be seen that the number of submissions increases in cases where the government is trying to promote policies that are of high public interest and controversial, such as nuclear power plant policy, the recycling of “removed soil” (soil that contains up to 80 times more radioactive materials than existing standard), infectious disease countermeasures, and My Number Cards.
In principle, the fact that a large number of public comments were submitted means a high level of public interest in the policy and should be considered a welcome indication. Even if there is simply “yes” or “no” written on the submission, it is still meaningfully expressing an opinion regarding the policy to the government. If expressing only for or against were pointless, then there would be no point in holding referendum or the national referendum on supreme court justices. Moreover, regarding AI generated comment, since AI generates the submission based on the writer’s instructions, it certainly represents the person’s opinion.
The other government concern is the large number of anonymous submissions. However, it is understandable that there are circumstances where someone would like to express their opinion to the government but wish to maintain the privacy of their identities. For example, if a government worker wishes to submit an opinion opposing government policy, it is very likely that they would withhold their submission due to the risk of adverse treatment. Although it does not apply to the current situation, we cannot rule out the possibility that the use of citizens’ opinions submitted to the public comment procedure could be used for different government policies, such as ideology surveillance purposes. In fact, in 2002, the Defense Agency checked the identity information of the people who had requested information disclosure and created a list for internal circulation[iii].
The government is also concerned about multiple submissions from the same person. However, the multiple submission of comments may not necessarily be considered unreasonable. Due to the way the public comment posting site is set up, there is a Japanese character limit of 6,000 and also a size limit for uploading attachment files. In some cases, the documents for a public comment could cover hundreds of pages and therefore it is sometimes impossible to submit a personal opinion in one submission.
According to the report, another concern the government has is that competition has arisen to increase the number of similar opinions in the submission of public comments. In general, it requires several years to formulate a policy. Considering the resources required for policy development, it is not hard to imagine that it would be difficult to make significant changes to the policy based on submitted opinions if the public comment is held at the final stage of the process. In fact, it has been pointed out that informal contact with stakeholders and coordination during the draft formulation phase are the factors behind the low revision rate of the draft at the public comment phase[iv]. One of the reasons for this competition in numbers of opinions may be the fact that in many cases, the reflection of opinions from public comments in the final policies has remained only superficial, and as a result people are trying to convey the voice of the public in terms of numbers. On the other hand, the sense of futility of the staff who are coordinating the submissions has also been regarded as a problem. It is natural that staff morale will decline if they have to spend long hours processing submissions for a public comment, sensing that the coordinated opinions will not make any meaningful difference to the policy in the end.
It can be said that public comment, which takes place at the final stage of policy-making, is a meaningful system since it allows the government to enhance public awareness of the policy, and to improve transparency of the system, as well as enabling the government to hear public opinions and to explain the intention and interpretation of the policy through the government’s response to the submitted comments. However, that is not enough. For example, in the Seventh Strategic Energy Plan, the phrase “reduce dependency on nuclear power as much as possible” was deleted and a 180-degree policy reversal was made to “sustainably utilize [nuclear power] to the scale necessary”. The government has responded that the reason for this change was made at the request of the nuclear industry and the local governments that host nuclear power plants. It is said that many of the public comments submitted on the Seventh Strategic Energy Plan were opinions calling for a nuclear phase-out. However, such voices seem to be considered less important than those of the nuclear industry and the local governments where nuclear power plants are located.
If the voices of the stakeholders heard during the process of policy formulation are prioritized while citizen participation at the final stage is disregarded, it is not surprising that voices doubting the purpose of public comment were raised by both the implementers and the public. Rather, measures are required to implement substantial citizen participation at the early and intermediate stages of policymaking. At the same time, transparency is required in unofficial contacts with stakeholders during the process of policy formulation.
In recent years, there has been a tendency to interpret the cost of democracy in a negative light. In the United States, on March 3, 2025, the U.S Department of Health and Human Services announced it would withdraw the so-called Richardson Waiver, which expands public comment beyond what is required by the administrative procedure Act. The Richardson Waiver was a measure put in place in 1971 to improve transparency and public participation in administration. Then, on April 1, it was reported that most of the staff of the information disclosure departments of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration were laid off[vi].
In Japan, in the past few years, in opinion exchange meetings held by the request of citizens to the government, there has been a situation in which the officials who attend meetings frequently request that their affiliated departments and personal names are not mentioned, or visuals made available to the public. The reason for the requests for anonymity is because they have been the target of harassment from the viewers of the broadcasts. At the same time, it is hard to imagine any cases where the government officials having discussions with industry associations do so on the condition of anonymity.
The same applies to the members of parliament. If you approach the US Congressional Building, you can see many citizens entering the building without any appointment and going in and out of members of parliament’s offices conducting various kinds of lobbying. On the other hand, in Japan, the entry to both the House of Representatives Building and House of Councilors Building are restricted. It is necessary to have appointments in advance to enter the buildings, and of course lobbing is prohibited.
Members of parliament are supposed to be the representatives of the people, but they refuse to interact with people. They supposed to be the people in charge of politics, but they reject political appeals from the people. We wonder, including with this deleterious revision of the public comment procedure, if somehow the government and members of parliament consider social movements to be their enemies for attempting to implement plans, and that is the reason for their defensive reactions.
Democracy carries a cost. It is a cost that is essential to protect the sovereignty of the people. The Public Comment Procedure is one of the fundamental tools protecting the rights of the people. We strongly oppose this harmful revision of the public comment system and rather request a system that has increased practical citizen participation at the policy development stage.
[i]Digital Agency. 2025. About the Public Comment Procedure: E-Gov. The Public Comment. Accessed April 3. (In Japanese)
public-comment.e-gov.go.jp/contents/about-public-comment.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. Outline of the Public Comment Procedure. www.soumu.go.jp/main_sosiki/gyoukan/kanri/tetsuzukihou/02gyokan01_04000433.html
[ii] Japan Broadcasting Corporation. 2025. More than 10,000 Public Comment Submissions, Increased Burden on Staff NHK. NHK News. Accessed April 3. (In Japanese)
www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20250325/k10014759191000.html.
NIKKEI Financial. 2025. Public Comment, Series of Unexpected Numbers of Submissions, Mobilization by SNS, Fading Public Opinion. Accessed April 3. (In Japanese)
www.nikkei.com/article/DGXZQOUA128RU0S5A310C2000000/.
NIKKEI Financial. 2025. 207,000 Public Comments submitted regarding Removed Soil, Wording Match in 96%. Accessed April 3. (In Japanese)
www.nikkei.com/article/DGKKZO87686130Y5A320C2EA4000/
Fukushima MinyuShinbun. 2025. Over 200,000 Public Comment Applications regarding Removed Soil, Recycling Standard Ordinance comes into effect on the 1st. Accessed April 3. (In Japanese) www.minyu-net.com/news/detail/2025032809081134687
[iii] Ministry of Defense. 2002. Investigative report regarding the request for disclosure of information regarding a 3rd Lieutenant in the Maritime Self-Defense Force’s Operations
Accessed April 3. (In Japanese)
warp.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/8431225/www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/hyouka/chousa/list/chosa41.html.
[iv] Hisashi Harada. 2011.”Broad-Range -Response-Type Bureaucracy – Study on Public Comment Procedure-“(Kohani-Outougata no Kanryosei – Paburikku Komento no Kenkyuu). Shinzansha. (In Japanese)
[v] Department of Health and Human Services. 2025. Policy on Adhering to the Text of the Administrative Procedure Act. Federal Register. Accessed April 3. www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/03/03/2025-03300/policy-on-adhering-to-the-text-of-the-administrative-procedure-act.
[vi] Tin, A. 2025. RFK Jr. Purges CDC and FDA’s Public Records Teams, despite “Transparency” Promises. CBS News. Accessed April 3. www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-purges-cdc-fda-records-transparency-teams/.
[vii] e.g.) wearing a t-shirt with a messages or holding placards, etc.
