Public Assistance Ruling: Govt Bears Heavy Responsibility for Failing to Justify Reductions

Editorial

15:00 JST, June 28, 2025

Public assistance is an essential system for ensuring that people in need can live with peace of mind. A court ruling emphasized the need for careful consideration when changing the amount of benefits in the system.

In lawsuits filed by recipients who argued that significant reductions in welfare benefits violated the Public Assistance Law, the Third Petty Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the reductions were illegal and ordered cancellation of the cuts. The ruling has become finalized.

Similar lawsuits have been filed in 29 district courts nationwide, and this ruling sets a precedent for those cases. The central and local governments will likely need to recalculate appropriate amounts not only for the plaintiffs in the lawsuits but also for all other recipients at the time of the cuts.

The standard amounts for welfare benefits serve as a benchmark for other support programs, such as reductions and exemptions for childcare fees and national pension insurance premiums. These programs may also be affected.

The Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry announced cuts of up to 10% in the standard amounts for food and utilities support welfare benefits during a period from 2013 to 2015, resulting in a total reduction of ¥67 billion. This measure was said to be a response to the declines in prices and wages following the 2008 collapse of U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers.

The main point of contention in the litigations was the appropriateness of the “deflation adjustment” reflecting the rate of price declines.

The Supreme Court said that “the revised rates in the deflation adjustment based solely on the rates of price fluctuations lacked consistency with expert knowledge,” concluding that “the health, labor and welfare minister’s judgment exceeded or abused discretion and was therefore illegal.”

As for the series of the lawsuits, the cuts were ruled illegal in seven cases at the high court level. It is considered that the government has broad discretionary authority and that courts generally tend to respect its judgment. In that sense, the top court’s strict ruling can be described as unprecedented.

The review of public assistance was carried out after the Liberal Democratic Party included it in its campaign pledges for the 2012 House of Representatives election. Is there any suspicion that the calculations were distorted to achieve a predetermined reduction? The government should reexamine the decision-making process for the reductions and fulfill its accountability to the public.

Welfare benefits in the public assistance program are received by 1.65 million households, half of which are single-person elderly households. The number of applications for welfare benefits has increased for five consecutive years, probably because more households find it difficult to make ends meet due to the COVID-19 pandemic and rising prices.

The Constitution states, “All people shall have the right to maintain the minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living,” and imposes on the state the duty to protect this right. Since reductions in welfare benefits directly affect people’s lives, clear reasons for cuts are necessary. The government must enhance the transparency of the system.

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, June 28, 2025)