美國聯邦憲法第五增修條文「徵收條款」之初探─以Kelo v. New London，545 U.S. 469（2005）為例─以作為釋字709號解釋的另項參考

A Study of Taking Cause Under the Fifth Amendment of U.S. Constitutional Law-Taking the Case, Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469(2005), as An Example For Proposing the Alternative Approach to J.Y. Interpretation No.709

宮文祥(Wen-Hsiang Kung)

《真理財經法學》 11期 (2013/09) Pp. 1+3-37

摘要

美國聯邦憲法於「權利法案」中之第五增修條文，就聯邦政府的國家徵用權予以規範、並同時設定相關之限制，以作為人民財產權重要保障之依據，其規定了：「非有適當補償，不得將私財產收為公用」。這樣的規定，肯認國家對於人民財產權得附加一定之負擔，但必須基於合法之目的、提供適當之補償，並應滿足憲法所要求之公共使用公共目的等正當程序，國家方才得以進行徵收。這其實也如同我國學說與實務之見解，肯認財產權負有一定之社會義務，但於此同時，國家也應本於憲法對於正當程序之要求，建構出對於基本權─財產權，應有的制度性保障。然而，對於正當程序概念的理解，尤其涉及對於徵收制度背後之理論，程序正當程序下相關標準設定之意義，以及其與實質正當程序之區分，對於我國亦同樣將正當程序界定成憲法位階之重要原則，究應如何掌握暨適當運用相關概念，容有再予以澄清之必要。因為，人民權益在相關案件事實中，所呈現的往往不只是形式上財產權的被剝奪，更是涉及了自由權、乃至於人性尊嚴的嚴重影響，針對此，恐將不是單純以財產權應負較高的社會義務可為徵收正當化的理由，即使已然符合程序的正當程序。簡言之，司法者著實應當對於正當程序做更靈活的操作，以期真正落實憲法與人權守護者的角色。

關鍵字

正當程序 ； 徵收條款 ； 實質正當程序 ； 公共使用 ； 公共目的

並列摘要

In U.S., under the Bill of Rights, the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution has prescribed as the following: ＂...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.＂ The so-called ＂taking clause＂ establishes the ＂eminent domain＂ and provides some certain limitations upon the government authority for protecting the property rights of the people from illegal intrusions by the federal government. In short, according to this clause, the government can take the property from people after providing just compensation and meeting the requirements of public use/public purpose. This idea is about the concept of due process prescribed in the Fifth Amendment and Fourteen Amendment. In Taiwan, we have similar theory concerning about the fundamental property rights under our constitutional law. In pursuant to our constitutional law, the property right has its own social obligation, but the government has its constitutional duty to make sure the whole legal system to provide enough protection, including the application of due process. The protection from due process under the Constitution includes procedural and substantive due processes. Therefore, although legislation can put some social burdens upon the property rights, the ＂taking＂ by the government is not so easily to be justified only by procedural due process. Once the burdens also cause some harms to the rights of freedom and the personal autonomy and dignity, in addition to checking if the legislation meets the requirements of the procedural due process, the judicial review shall also consider the possibility of the use of substantive due process to ensure the people can have enough protection for fulfilling the powers of the Judges granted by the Constitution.

並列關鍵字

Due Process ； Taking Clause ； Substantive Due Process ； Public Use ； Public Purpose