耕地三七五減租條例第19條第1項第3款收回自耕限制之檢討──再訪司法院釋字第580號解釋

Revisiting J.Y. Interpretation No. 580: A Review of Restrictions on Lessor's Right to Retrieve Leased Farmland for Self-Cultivation under the 37.5% Arable Rent Reduction Act

台灣在1950年代土地改革的大旗下制定了耕地三七五減租條例，對於地租上限與地主收回自耕設定了嚴格的限制，甚至還有刑事處罰。隨著我國整體經濟社會環境不斷變遷，減租條例對於耕地租約的管制是否還有必要，於該條例施行半世紀後，即引起憲法問題。雖然2004年司法院釋字第580號對於同條例第19條第1項第3款關於收回自耕限制之規定，作成合憲宣告，對於維護耕地租賃的法安定性，有其里程碑意義。但解釋作成後又經過20多年，如今應就減租條例的歷史縱深進行更充分的檢視，基本國策條款與憲法第15條保障人民財產權之內容應相互整合，共同發揮規範作用，立法者對於減租條例本應隨社會整體發展而定期檢討，俾能與時俱進。尤其，農業發展條例施行後，並未同步規劃減租條例的退場機制，形成一國之內兩套農地租賃法制的奇特現象。本文從我國農業經濟環境的變遷出發，重新檢討減租條例第19條第1項第3款規定是否還能維持。

The 37.5% Arable Rent Reduction Act was enacted in Taiwan in the 1950s under the banner of land reform, setting stringent restrictions on the ceiling of land rent and on lessor's right to retrieve leased farmland for self-cultivation, and even prescribing criminal penalties. With the continuous transformation of the nation's overall economic and social environment, the necessity of the Act's control over farmland leases became a constitutional issue half a century after its implementation.
Although the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 580 in 2004 affirmed the constitutionality of Article 19, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3 of the 37.5% Arable Rent Reduction Act, which restricts the lessor's right to retrieve the land for self-cultivation, it was a milestone in maintaining the legal stability of farmland leasing. More than 20 years have passed since the Interpretation was made. Now, a more thorough review of the historical depth of the rent reduction regulations is needed. The Fundamental National Policy provisions and Article 15 of the Constitution, which protects people's property rights, should be integrated to play a regulatory role together. Legislators should regularly review the rent reduction regulations in line with the overall development of society so as to keep pace with the times. In particular, the implementation of the Agricultural Development Act was not accompanied by a synchronous plan for the exit mechanism of the 37.5% Arable Rent Reduction Act, leading to the peculiar phenomenon of two parallel sets of farmland lease legal systems within one country.
This article examines the changes in Taiwan’s agricultural economic environment to reassess whether the provisions of Article 19, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 3 of the 37.5% Arable Rent Reduction Act should be maintained.