國土計畫法相關法律問題之分析

Analysis of Issues in the National Land Use Planning Act in Taiwan

我國國土計畫法自2016年5月1日起施行，已將屆施行10年，該法之制定施行自有其理由，主要在於匡正區域計畫法下土地使用管制制度之弊端。另全國國土計畫與直轄市、縣（市）國土計畫已分別由內政部營建署與直轄市、縣（市）主管機關於2018年4月30日與2021年4月30日公告實施。經由本文發現：固然國土計畫法誠有制定之必要，尤其，其規範「應經申請使用許可」（許可使用制）機制以匡正區域計畫法下「應經申請開發」（開發許可制），以利土地開發得以顧及環境生態保護等相關利益，值得肯認。另經本文分析認為，地方主管機關業已公告實施之國土計畫，其法律性質應定性為法規、而非行政處分，未來據以製作之國土功能分區圖及其使用地編定結果，其法律性質應定性為行政處分，故而人民得提起行政救濟。又相較於區域計畫法下土地利用計畫，國土計畫法下國土計畫具有多項優點，然於其擬訂過程中，尚有缺失，其中最為嚴重者為：未確實落實正當行政程序下關於「公、私利益衡量機制（原則）」，其結果恐會致使所公告實施之國土計畫遭致行政法院判決撤銷；另外，地方主管機關並未確實落實國土計畫法下「編定適當使用地」與「使用地類別編定」該二行政措施，此一缺失亦會影響地方國土計畫之土地使用管制效益。此外，國土計畫法關於地方國土計畫公告實施與人民土地使用限制損失補償請求權之要件亦未予以明定，此應不符損失補償法定主義之要旨。最後，國土計畫法授權訂定眾多法規命令，然其規定內容應考量現行相關法規之規範內容，以避免法規間發生適用扞格而削弱其實施效益。

Since the National Land Use Planning Act (NLUPA) of our country came into effect on May 1, 2016, it has been nearly ten years since its implementation. The enactment and enforcement of the NLUPA had their justifications—primarily to rectify the flaws in the land-use control system under the Regional Planning Act (RPA). Furthermore, the National Spatial Plan and the Municipal and County (City) Land Plans were officially promulgated and implemented by the Construction and Planning Administration of the Ministry of the Interior and the competent authorities of each municipality and county (city) on April 30, 2018, and April 30, 2021, respectively.
This paper finds that while the enactment of the NLUPA was indeed necessary—particularly in its establishment of a mechanism requiring“permission for land use (use permit system)”to correct the RPA’s“permission for land development (development permit system)”—this reform helps ensure that land development takes into account environmental and ecological protection and other related interests, and is therefore commendable.
Moreover, this study concludes that the local land plans promulgated and implemented by local competent authorities under the NLUPA should be legally characterized as regulations (rules) rather than administrative dispositions. However, the functional zoning maps and the land-use zoning designations subsequently produced based on these plans should be legally characterized as administrative dispositions, meaning that the public may seek administrative remedies against them.
Compared with the land-use plans under the RPA, the land plans under the NLUPA possess multiple advantages. Nevertheless, deficiencies still exist in the drafting process. The most serious issue is the failure to properly implement the“public–private interest balancing mechanism (principle)”required under due administrative procedures. As a result, the announced and implemented land plans may risk being revoked by administrative court judgments.
In addition, local competent authorities have not fully implemented two key administrative measures under the NLUPA—namely, the designation of appropriate land uses and the classification of land-use categories. Such deficiencies may undermine the effectiveness of land-use control within local land plans.
Furthermore, the NLUPA fails to clearly define the requirements for citizens to claim compensation for losses resulting from land-use restrictions following the promulgation and implementation of local land plans. This omission appears inconsistent with the principle of legality in loss compensation.
Lastly, although the NLUPA delegates authority for the enactment of numerous regulations and administrative orders, their content should be carefully coordinated with existing related laws and regulations to prevent conflicts in application and to avoid weakening the effectiveness of the Act’s implementation.