Both panels said the Constitution must incorporate new types of basic human rights, including the right to privacy, the right to know and the right to access to the media. The Lower House panel said a “majority”favored incorporating these rights, while the Upper House panel called the right to privacy a “social trend.”

On media freedom, both panels praised the media for contributing to the right to know, but pointed to media problems such as violations of human rights and privacy. Opinion was also divided in both panels on the media’s ability to regulate itself, and on referring to the possibility of third-party regulatory bodies.

The reports left the issue of a national referendum law for revising the Constitution to the discretion of the Lower House speaker and the Upper House president, respectively.

The filing of the reports means attention should now move to continued public debate on constitutional change and the design of a national referendum law.

Like-named Research Commissions on the Constitution were formed in both houses in 2000 to conduct broad and comprehensive reviews of the founding charter. The Lower House panel comprised 50 legislators and the Upper House panel 45. Both panels submitted reports split along party lines, with a majority composed of the governing coalition Liberal Democratic Party and its coalition partner New Komeito voting together with the main opposition party, the Democratic Party of Japan, against the Japanese Community Party and the Social Democratic Party.

On the most divisive issues, the Lower House panel called decisions passed by two-thirds a “majority view,”while the Upper House panel called views endorsed by the LDP, DPJ and New Komeito trio “ social trend.”

On “new types of human rights,”both panels debated the pros and cons of incorporating them in the Constitution, linking them to the media.

The Lower House panel said a majority wanted them explicitly included because: 1) the right to know is essential to self-governance and public decision-making; 2) the right of access to the media is a protection against over-concentration of power in a media and information oligopoly; and 3) the pervasiveness of the information society necessitates a constitutional right to privacy.

On freedom of expression, the Upper House panel was split over regulating the progress of the media and information technology (IT).

Both panels called the freedom of the press vital to the people's right to know. But the Lower House panel cited many instances of media-related human rights violations involving detrimental media coverage linked to growing media influence and commercialism. The Upper House panel noted that public fears of violations of privacy are tied to overly intrusive media.

The Lower House panel discussed how freedom of expression can violate the right to privacy, giving precedence to the freedom of expression, but also calling for protections for the right to privacy for individuals as the weaker party in the face of the mass media.

On ties between media freedom and individual privacy, the Lower House panel listed pros and cons on media self-regulation. Some opposed legal regulation of the media's autonomous judgment and endorsed a third-party monitoring body to be set up by the media. But others said such self-regulation would fail and that a third-party body should be created independent of the administrative branch of government to both safeguard media freedom and protect the privacy of individuals. There was also a call for compensation for damage by the media, and for disciplinary measures after successful lawsuits against the media.

The Upper House panel also cited pros and cons, saying a government organ would tend to be one-sided, while self-regulation is rarely successful. The panel concluded that a third-party body appeared most likely to protect against abuse and cover-ups.