以高額行政罰禁止炒房的合憲性檢視

Constitutional Examination of Imposing High Administrative Penalties to Deter House Speculation

平均地權條例修法禁止的三款炒房態樣，其實都可以用公平交易法第21條和第25條處理。且該條文在實質內容和執法程序上，都有違憲問題。
實質上，平均地權條例的炒房裁罰規定，100萬的裁罰下限規定，可能出現個案中顯然過苛而情輕法重之情形。5,000萬的最高裁罰額度，表面上尚不致於當然違憲。但是其規定按成交戶（棟、筆）加乘處罰，過於僵化操作，可能在個案上造成「罰鍰金額無限擴大之虞，個案現然過苛之處罰」，亦可能違憲。
在執法程序上，參考歐洲人權公約第6條之事實上刑事罰之程序保障，以及大法官解釋對正當行政程序之要求，對此種高額行政罰鍰，應透過內部程序分工，進行內部權力制衡。但平均地權條例炒房之裁罰權力，交由各地方主管機關，欠缺各種內部程序制衡與保障。

The three types of house speculation prohibited by the amendment to the Equalization of Land Rights Act can actually be addressed using Articles 21 and 25 of the Fair Trade Act. Furthermore, there are constitutional issues in both the substantive content and enforcement procedures of this provision.
Concerning the administrative penalties for house speculation specified in the Equalization of Land Rights Act, the minimum fine of 1 million may seem excessively harsh in individual cases, making the penalty disproportionate to the offense. While the maximum fine of 50 million may not be inherently unconstitutional, its application, based on the household (building, pen) of the transactions, is deemed overly rigid. This approach may pose the risk of an unlimited expansion of the fine amount, potentially leading to severe penalties in individual cases, which could be deemed unconstitutional.
In terms of law enforcement procedures, considering the procedural guarantees of de facto criminal penalties outlined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the requirements of due process in administrative procedures as explained by the Grand Justices, it is argued that high administrative penalties should be subject to internal procedural checks and balances. However, the authority to penalize house speculators under the Equalization of Land Rights Act is delegated to local competent authorities, lacking sufficient internal procedures for effective checks and balances.