由美河市徵地違憲案探析土地徵收公益性及必要性

2015年9月25日，大法官會議釋字第732號解釋，宣告美河市土地徵收案所依據的《大眾捷運法》以及《大眾捷運系統土地開發辦法》中，允許徵收興建捷運旁的毗鄰地進行聯合開發之條款違反憲法內容，即日起不予適用。美河市最大的問題是辦理徵收，將民眾的土地提供私人財團，亦屬公益性的問題，732號解釋表示徵收只能限於交通事業所必需，不能徵收作別的使用，而且是限縮在最小限度內的必要的範圍。而美河市聯開宅蓋在捷運機廠的用地上，政府顯然將機廠用地範圍規劃過大，更將一部分用來蓋集合住宅或其他商業使用。顯已違反憲法的比例原則及對人民的侵害性最小原則。興建住、商、辦大樓基地並非屬捷運設施之所必需，而採一般徵收方式來取得興建大樓所需基地部分，從結果來看明顯違反徵收的公益性與必要性原則。美河市案因政府以興建捷運為由，民眾土地被政府低價徵收，部分卻興建豪宅，並由建商取走70%的產權。人民（地主/民眾）窮盡各種救濟管道，但行政法院三審皆輸。當初所定義的徵收公益性及必要性在開發後似已改變，改變後是否仍存在原有評估的公益性與必要性實有爭議，本研究試圖由此案對公益性與必要性定義進行探討與探析，並提出解釋論上的建議。

關鍵字

土地徵收；大眾捷運系統土地開發辦法；公益性；交通事業；利益比較衡量評估

並列摘要

On September 25th, 2015, the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 732 declared the provisions which MeHAS expropriation pursuant to was unconstitutional. These provisions in Mass Rapid Transit Act and Regulations for the Joint Development of Land Adjacent to or Contiguous with the Mass Rapid Transit System allowing competent authorities to expropriate lands adjacent to Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) System should no longer be applicable from the date of Interpretation. The major issue of MeHAS case lies in the land expropriation: on the one hand, people's lands are provided to private consortium use, and public welfare involves on the other hand. J.Y. Interpretation No. 732 rules that land expropriation shall be restricted to transportation purpose to the minimum extent necessary. However, the MeHas joint development housing complex was built on the land reserved for MRT depot. It is reasonable to assume that the government over-seized a scope for the depot than its necessary requirement, where it even further made part of the land for congregate housing or other business purpose. This has been clearly inconsistent with the principle of proportionality and the principle of minimum violation to people's rights in the Constitution. The building lot for office and housing are not necessarily required for MRT facility, and expropriating that building lot in a common way has already violated the principle of public welfare and necessity under the land expropriation in consequence. In MeHas expropriation, the government initially expropriated private land for use by MRT with low price, however it turned out to be partly use for housing complex where the construction company even seized the property rights up to 70%. The land owners have filed administrative remedy but eventually it's been objected by the Supreme Administrative Court. The public welfare and necessity defined in the first place seems to be alternated after the land development, and it becomes dispute if the originally assessed definition remains. This case study aims to explore the definition of public welfare and necessity and to provide suggestion based on interpretive theory.

並列關鍵字

Land Expropriation ； Regulations for the Joint Development of Land Adjacent to or Contiguous with the Mass Rapid Transit System ； Public Welfare ； Transportation Enterprise ； Comparative Assessment on Interest