Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi said Sunday that Japan's constitution should be updated periodically to remain aligned with the needs of the era [1].

This push for constitutional reform signals a potential shift in Japan's legal foundation, which has remained largely unchanged for decades. Takaichi's stance places her at the center of a long-standing ideological battle between those seeking a more modern security framework and those fearing a return to militarism.

Speaking at a Constitution Memorial Day event in Tokyo, Takaichi said the constitution is the foundation and core of the nation [1]. She said that to prevent its value from eroding, the document should originally be designed for regular updates to meet the requests of the times [1].

This position follows a previous announcement made on April 12 during the Liberal Democratic Party's 93rd convention [2, 3]. At that event, Takaichi said that the time had come for reform, marking 70 years [2] since the party's founding. She said at that time that a prospect for proposing constitutional amendments had been established [2].

However, the Prime Minister's vision faces stiff opposition from political rivals. Tamura, the chairperson of the Japanese Communist Party, said Sunday that the constitution serves as a binding agreement to ensure the state never engages in war again [3]. Tamura said that breaking this binding constraint is absolutely impermissible [3].

The Prime Minister continues to emphasize her accountability to the public and the party's vision as she seeks to move the debate toward the National Diet [1, 2].

“The constitution should originally be designed for regular updates to meet the requests of the times.”

Takaichi's insistence on 'periodic updates' represents a departure from viewing the constitution as a static, sacred text. By framing the document as a tool that must evolve, the administration is attempting to normalize the process of amendment. This strategy aims to lower the political hurdle for changing Article 9 and other core tenets, though it remains a point of deep national division.