[Blog]When Can Passports or Residence Cards Be Requested? — Understanding the Law Through Legislative Purpose

2025-12-29

In December 2025, reports emerged that a Zainichi Korean woman (born and raised in Japan, residing in Kobe City) filed a lawsuit against a Tokyo hotel after being asked to present a “passport or residence card” and ultimately being refused accommodation. The case has attracted widespread attention. See the article here: Zainichi Korean woman sues hotel: “Even without malice, discrimination is still discrimination”.

Incidents of this kind often arise because on-site practices are driven by “custom” rather than a clear understanding of who may request identification, on what legal basis, and for what purpose. This article examines the rules governing requests for passports and residence cards, focusing on commonly misunderstood points and, importantly, the legislative intent behind those rules.

The Obligation to Present a Passport or Residence Card Exists Only in Relation to Public Authorities

As a basic principle, passports and residence cards must be presented only when lawfully requested by public authorities vested with statutory powers, such as immigration officers or police officers. The Immigration Services Agency explains that foreign nationals are required to present such documents when requested by “authorized officials.”

Private businesses—such as hotels, shops, or other service providers—do not have a general or comprehensive legal authority to compel the presentation of residence cards. What private entities may do is request voluntary cooperation for reasonable identity verification as part of a contract. Refusal to present a document does not, by itself, make a person a legal violator.

The Only Clear Exception Under the Hotel Business Act: Foreigners Without a Domestic Address

The most frequent misunderstanding arises in connection with guest registries under the Hotel Business Act. While guest registries generally require basic information such as name, address, and contact details, additional information is mandated only for “foreigners who do not have an address in Japan.” For such guests, nationality and passport number must be recorded.

For this reason, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare has issued administrative guidance explaining that it is desirable to confirm a passport in order to accurately record this legally required information. Importantly, this requirement does not apply to foreign residents who do have an address in Japan. The distinction is based on residence status, not nationality.

“Either a Passport or a Residence Card Is Fine” Is Also a Misconception

It is often said that “showing either a passport or a residence card is sufficient.” This explanation can be misleading because it conflates different legal contexts. The duty to present identification primarily arises when requested by authorized officials. In such cases, mid- to long-term residents who have been issued a residence card are generally required to present that residence card; a passport is not simply an interchangeable alternative.

This point is explained in more detail in the following blog post, which emphasizes the importance of identifying to whom the presentation obligation applies: Notes on the Obligation to Present a Residence Card. Confusion often occurs when hotel staff invoke the Hotel Business Act while guests respond by citing immigration law; understanding that these laws serve different purposes is essential.

The Special Permanent Resident Certificate

A document similar in appearance and function to the residence card is the Special Permanent Resident Certificate. While ordinary mid- to long-term residents hold residence cards under the Immigration Control Act, special permanent residents hold this certificate under a separate special law. The reported case underscores the importance of recognizing this distinction.

No General Carrying Obligation for the Special Permanent Resident Certificate

Another key difference is that, unlike residence cards, Special Permanent Resident Certificates are generally not subject to a constant carrying obligation. This reflects the distinct legal framework governing special permanent residents. However, the absence of a carrying obligation does not mean that identity verification is never appropriate; rather, it highlights that any request must be carefully justified and proportionate.

The Purpose and Historical Background of the Special Permanent Resident System

The system of special permanent residence is deeply rooted in Japan’s prewar and postwar history. It applies to people whose ties to Japan originate from the period of Japanese rule over the Korean Peninsula and related historical circumstances. The status is not merely another immigration category, but a special legal position created in recognition of that history.

Failing to understand this background and treating individuals solely as “foreigners” who must present documents can result in actions that undermine personal dignity and, in some cases, amount to discrimination. In the reported case, the suggestion that the guest could stay “if she used a Japanese alias” vividly illustrates how ignorance of legislative purpose can lead to deeply problematic conduct.

Understanding Legislative Purpose Is Essential for Both Businesses and Public Officials

This issue is not limited to hotel operators. Even public officials risk overstepping legal boundaries if they rely solely on administrative custom or vague guidance without understanding legislative intent. The Hotel Business Act’s guest registry rules aim to ensure accurate records for foreigners without domestic addresses. Immigration law’s carrying and presentation obligations aim to enable lawful enforcement by authorized officials. These purposes differ, and so do the permissible actors and methods.

Accordingly, at hotel reception desks and elsewhere, the proper questions are not “Is the person a foreigner?” but rather: (A) Does the guest lack a domestic address? (B) If so, what information is legally required? (C) If the guest does have a domestic address, is it reasonable or lawful to insist on a passport or residence card? and (D) Are there alternative means of confirmation, such as documents showing a Japanese address?

Compliance that is grounded not merely in “what the law says” or “what authorities advise,” but in why the law exists, is the most reliable way to protect both legal order and human dignity.