析論我國土地徵收法制上之爭議問題

Controversies of Land Expropriation Law

本文主要針對現行土地徵收條例中，具有特色之法定協議程序、土地改良物一併徵收、以公告土地現值作為土地補償基準及徵收之行政救濟等項重要規定，就其爭議問題，以近年行政法院相關裁判為主要素材，予以檢討分析。其要點如下：一、實務上常見需用土地人為應付法定協議程序規定，僅形式地進行之。對此，行政法院判決認為流於形式，不符合正當法律程序之協議程序為違法。另協議之法律性質，向有公法契約與私法契約之對立見解。而本文基於是項法定協議具公共目的性；且協議之進行，往往是在徵收申請之際，實具替代徵收處分性質；以及土地所有權人未與需用土地人處於對等地位，私法自治、契約自由原則於協議時往往為假象等理由，認為採公法契約之見解為宜。二、土地徵收時，其土地改良物依法應一併徵收。然行政法院判決傾向認為，土地改良物一併徵收，祇要於土地徵收之計畫使用年限內為之，即於法無違。因常有所擬興辦之公共事業不具急迫性，卻先行徵收土地，時隔多年後，始另行為地上改良物徵收之情事。其成因，實因實務上對於徵收土地之計畫使用期限認定過於寬鬆所致。是以本文基於財產權保障，認為土地改良物之一併徵收時間，於都市計畫地區，如距土地徵收時間逾五年者；於都市計畫地區外，距土地徵收時間逾三年者，均應解為與一併徵收規定意旨有違。三、土地徵收條例關於徵收補償採相當補償原則；且行政法院判決雖亦認為憲法係採相當補償原則。但此是否果真符合憲法保障人民財產權之意旨？有待斟酌。另依法作為土地徵收補償基準之公告土地現值，其評定依據為地價調查估計規則；但該規則係由土地法施行法所授權訂定，而非規定公告土地現值之平均地權條例及土地徵收條例所授權訂定，故依該規則評定公告土地現值，並以之作為土地補償之基準，將違反法律保留原則。四、現行土地徵收條例係將徵收處分與補償處分，分別由內政部及直轄市或縣（市）政府為之。且另一方面，其亦對於土地徵收另設有異議及復議之救濟途徑，但由於規定不明確與立法上之疏失，致於土地徵收之行政救濟上呈現諸多亂象，不僅徒增無謂之爭議，亦使人民權利保護受到阻延。 This study intends to take the recent judgments of the Administrative Court as primary reference sources to examine controversies related to land expropriation. The main points are as follows: 1.On the basis of statutory negotiation for land expropriation for public purposes, this study argues that it is better to adopt the perspective of public law contract for the following reasons: ( ) the proceeding of negotiation actually includes the character that can substitute for the administrative disposition of land expropriation; ( ) the land owners may not always stand in opposition to the applicants; and (3) the principle of private law autonomy and that of contract liberty are often false appearances during negotiation.2.This study asserts that as for law explanation, the joint expropriation of improved facilities on land should be considered disobeying the intentions of joint expropriation requirements if ( ) happens at an urban planning district and after the land expropriation program for over five years, or ( ) it happens beyond an urban planning district and after the land expropriation program for over three years.3.The announced land value (according to law serves as the standard of land expropriation compensation) should be assessed in accordance with “Rules for Land Value Assessments.” But the rules are legislated and authorized by Land Law rather than the Statute for Expropriating or the Statute for Equalization of Land Rights under an authorized announcement of the present land value. Therefore, to adopt the rules to evaluate the value of land and to take the rules as benchmark of land compensation will ultimately violate the principle of law reservation.4. As for the land expropriation system in Taiwan, the expropriation punishment and compensation punishment are performed respectively by two government organizations: ( ) the Ministry of the Interior and ( ) the municipality or county/city government. On the side, the Statute for Expropriating helps land expropriation. Nevertheless, since the rules are unclear and with legislative oversight, real practices of administrative help in response to land expropriation invite many problems, not only bringing about unnecessary controversies but also delaying the protection of people’s rights.