論土地徵收中公益性與必要性之評估

Discussion on the Public Interest in the Land Acquisition Law

近來不管中部科學園區、大埔科學基地以及桃園航空城計畫由於用地取得必須要大幅地徵收私人土地，以至於紛爭四起，後兩者更有地主因此而自殺。一般均認為，憲法中財產權之保障並無絕對性，其仍應負擔社會義務，於此，土地所有權可能在公益的目的下而被徵收，並且必須遵循最小侵害之要求，對此，土地徵收條例第3 條規定：「國家因公益需要，興辦下列各款事業，得徵收私有土地；徵收之範圍，應以其事業所必須者為限…」。如此作法似乎仍無法確認在何種情況下，始得徵收該土地。而民國101 年1 月修正土地徵收條例時增訂了第3 條之1與之2 之規定，前者為過度侵害禁止的要求，後者則指出，需用土地人興辦事業徵收土地時，應依社會、經濟、文化及生態、永續發展等因素評估興辦事業之公益性及必要性，並為綜合評估分析。在此，首先要檢討的問題是，是否要以區段徵收作為開發行為取得土地之方式。區段徵收造成徵收之土地面積增加，以往乃是因為徵收價格未能合於市價所採取的不得已手段，未來徵收價格必須以市價徵收，如此再以區段徵收之法是否對人民有利益，則甚有疑義了，應利用此一機會思考該制度的存廢。此外，我國缺乏國土整體計畫甚久，目前行政院業已通過國土計畫法草案，依據行政院版之國土計畫法草案，未來之國土將分成國土保育區、海洋資源區、農業發展區及城鄉發展區四大類。該草案明定，新訂或擴大都市計畫案件，只能在城鄉發展區進行，若要在其他不同功能分區進行，必須先辦理國土計畫變更，其目的在於避免都市計畫案不當破壞農地及其他保育區。倘若該法得以通過實行，則除可遏止不當開發外，對於土地所有權之保障亦有正面幫助。然而，國土計畫法已非第一次地草擬，此前亦有草案送至立法院審查，但最後未能順利通過，基於草案屆期不連續之原則最後無疾而終。而關於土地徵收規範實用性的不足一事，土地徵收條例的修正混淆了計畫決定與徵收決定應考量之事項，但是此種作法或許是因為前階段的計畫決定程序遲遲未能被規範，在此正本清源之方法乃是修改都市計畫法。於都市計畫考量公共福祉，特別是該計畫與社會因素、經濟因素、文化及生態因素以及永續發展的因素。應於都市計畫中之主要計畫就社會因素中的弱勢族群生活型態及健康風險之影響程度；經濟因素中稅收、糧食安全、增減就業或轉業人口、農林漁牧產業鏈及土地利用完整性等；文化及生態因素中關於城鄉自然風貌、生活條件或模式發生改變及對該地區生態環境、周邊居民或社會整體之影響；以及與國家永續發展政策、永續指標及國土計畫的配合做考量。換言之，現行土地徵收條例第3 條之2應該要予以拆分，僅有社會與經濟因素中與個人直接相關之部分，出現在徵收程序中考量。最後，要被處理的問題則是協議價購必須要被落實，尤其在市價徵收後，協議價購更有發揮的空間。

The recent expropriation of science park, Taoyuan Aerotropolis and some other places concerning plenty of private property has already caused a great deal of dispute, not to mention that landowners have even committed suicide due to those events. It has been generally deemed that the property right is not protected by the Constitution absolutely. In fact, it is no doubt responsible to the duty of society. Therefore, under this point of view, the ownership of land may be expropriated under the purpose of public interest. However, it should also meet the means of minimization requirements. Thus, according to article 3 of the Land Expropriation Act “To establish any of the following undertakings for public interest purpose, the State may expropriate private land, to the extent strictly required by such undertaking:……” Observing from the Act above, it seems that the standard to determine in which situations could the government execute expropriation is however vague and lacks a clear and absolute definition. During the Amendment of the Land Expropriation Act in 2012, article 3-1 and 3-2 were added into the regulation. First, article 3-1 is the requisition of the narrow sense of proportional principle. Second, article 3-2 mentioned that when considering expropriating land for establishing an undertaking, a land use applicant shall evaluate the public interest purpose and necessity of such undertaking and carry out overall evaluation and analysis of the social, economic, cultural, ecological, sustainable and other factors, in order to make a comprehensive evaluation and analysis. This article first descripts the system of land expropriation as well as the protection of propriety right. Second, observing from the Federal Building Code of Germany, it might be suitable to deem as the guiding principle of the necessity and public interest in the Land Expropriation Act. And at last, a possible solution will be given out to aid the estimation in each individual case.