居住・移転の自由の再考 : 精神障害を理由とする強制入院に関する試験的考察

This paper examines involuntary hospitalization in psychiatric hospitals from the perspective of freedom of freedom to choose and change his residence (Article 22(1) of the Constitution).
The fundamental right is said to have an aspect of spiritual freedom as well as economic freedom, and the criteria for determining the constitutionality of regulations must be strictly examined.
Several previous studies have pointed out that involuntary hospitalization in psychiatric hospitals is a restriction on freedom of his/her residence. However, it has generally been considered a reasonable and necessary restriction of rights "for the safety of the individual and society," along with behavioral restrictions in infectious diseases.
In light of the fact that the population of psychosocial disabilities has been increasing, and the concept of "disability" has become more widely understood, it is necessary to examine whether the current legal system is a necessary and sufficient restriction on the fundamental human right of freedom of residence.
There is no Supreme Court decision that has set forth specific criteria for determining the constitutionality of restrictions on the freedom of residence, so we will examine the permissibility of such restrictions by referring to some relevant lower court precedents.
The specifics of "freedom of residence " vary widely, ranging from deprivation of residence to temporary travel restrictions. The author will therefore examine the issue using two indicators: the specific content of the freedom faced and the method of infringement. In particular, the importance of freedom of residence, as indicated in the ruling by the Kumamoto District Court in 2001 in a lawsuit against the unconstitutionality of isolation regulations for leprosy patients, is also instructive for hospitalization in psychiatric hospitals. In addition, the court decision regarding the rejection of a notice of transfer submitted by a religious group called "Aleph" was made using strict, clear and present standards, and such a decision-making process is also useful for examining the system of involuntary hospitalization in psychiatric hospitals.
The average length of stay in psychiatric hospitals is over 300 days, and many people have even been hospitalized for more than 50 years. In the face of this reality, it is necessary to first confirm that people do not lose their homes without reasonable cause, then to verify the reasonableness of long-term hospitalization, which can be evaluated as a home, and to provide concrete support for those who have been hospitalized in psychiatric hospitals for long periods to secure a new place to live in the community. The basic principle of freedom of residence should be examined. The fundamental human right of freedom of residence needs to be reconsidered so that it can be given meaning.