論土地徵收條例第三條第十款之規定「其他依法得徵收土地之事業」分析

Discussing on the regulation of Article 3, paragraph 10 in land expropriation bylaw -- The analysis on other lawful acquirable lands by the industry

歐、美、日等先進國家，對於「土地徵收」之行為，均以謹慎角度相因應。我國土地徵收條例第3條第10款之制定，對於「其他依法得徵土地之事業」，是否符合「公共利益」而爭手私人土地，對人民之財產權，利用公權力加以限制，是否違憲？本文針對此問題提出全盤之檢討，認為土地徵收條例第3條第10款之制定並不合理。其次，所謂「公共利益」，在實務上該如何認定，學界更是質疑土地徵收條例中所謂「公益性」就線之空間過於「模糊」：是以，土地徵收條例第3條第10款所規範之內容，國家利用公權力給予無限上綱，即欠缺必要興而違背比例原則，在憲法原則之要求下，應無法律之效力。因此此條第10款之制定顯然違反憲法第23條所謂「公共利益」之規定，應屬無效：何況對於被徵收土地所有人，當期喪失不動產吃財產權，國家應予完全賠償。這是一般論點，可是，當自身所擁有且賴以維生之土地〈如在土地上種植稻米、蔬果〉之期待「收益」不能實現，此種種植之「技能」，若無法在自身土地上發生，其收益無法實現，假設此種賴以維生是庶民的唯一基本生存權，納國家任意發動公權力而徵收土立，就需深刻去省思此問題。避免衍生出另一個生存權不公之課題，實有加以檢視之必要。

In the developed countries such as the European Union, the US, and Japan, taking an act of “land expropriation” is based on cautious attitudes. In contrast, in Taiwan, whether the expropriations of private land pursuant to “Other lawful acquirable lands by the industry” stipulated in Article 3, paragraph 10 in “land expropriation bylaw” is up to ‘public interest’ and, whether the limitation on the rights of civil property by national public power is in violation of the Constitution. In this article, after an across-the-board review into those issues, I argue that the regulation of Article 3, paragraph 10 is unreasonable. In addition, that how to define ‘public interest’ practically is disputable; even some in academia deem the gamut of ‘public welfare’ is much ambiguous.1 Upon this, it seems that the national public power is limitless through the languages stipulated in Article 3, paragraph 10 in “land expropriation bylaw;” i.e., it lacks in necessity and varies from ‘principle of proportion’ so that, under the requirements of the Constitution, shall have no legal effect accordingly. To sum up, the paragraph mentioned above is obviously in violation of ‘public interest’stipulated in Article 23 in the Constitution so that should be invalid. Worse, there's another derivative issue of “injustice of the rights of subsistence” for those who expropriated, which is necessary to be inspected further.