徵收之憲法拘束：以「私用徵收」的違憲審查為中心

Constitutional Restraint on the Exercise of Eminent Domain for Private Use

陳仲嶙(Chung-Lin Chen)

《臺大法學論叢》 40卷3期 (2011/09) Pp. 1029-1088

https://doi.org/10.6199/NTULJ.2011.40.03.03

摘要

在我國，法律賦予政府極廣泛的徵收權力，其中不乏私用徵收之授權，也就是允許為提供私人特別使用－而非提供公眾使用－所進行之徵收。這些法律過去極少遭受質疑，政府泛濫的徵收也往往高舉依法行政之旗幟。本文之目的，即在探討徵收之發動應受如何的憲法拘束，尤其聚焦於私用徵收應觸發何種違憲審查標準之議題。從效率、公平性以及政治程序健全性三個面向之論述出發，本文主張，司法者對於私用徵收之法律與行政決定應嚴格地加以檢視。依此見解，則我國目前授權為設置園區進行徵收之立法，恐怕無法通過違憲審查；近期幾項遭受抗爭之徵收決定，也在合法性上問題重重。

關鍵字

徵收 ； 財產權 ； 違憲審查 ； 審查標準 ； 公共使用條款 ； 凱洛案

並列摘要

In Taiwan, laws grant governments extensive powers of eminent domain, including, in many circumstances, the power to take property for the purpose of conveying it to a private person. Those laws were rarely questioned, and governments often abuse the power while claiming that their actions are based on law. The purpose of this article is to investigate the constitutional constraint on the exercise of eminent domain. Particularly, the article will focus on the issue what standard of judicial review should apply to taking property for private use.Based on the analysis from the perspectives of efficiency, fairness, and political process failure, this article argues that state actions that allow governments to take property for private use should trigger strict scrutiny. It follows that the current statutes that authorize governments to take property for the purpose of establishing various ”industrial parks” are likely unconstitutional and many recent administrative decisions of eminent domain are highly problematic in terms of legality.

並列關鍵字

taking ； eminent domain ； condemnation ； property rights ； judicial review ； standard of review ； public use clause ； Kelo v. City of New London

參考文獻

大埔、二重埔、灣寶以及相思寮自救會（2010）。《農民自救聯合宣言：一方有難， 三方來救！ 》， 載於環境資訊中心網站，http://e-info.org.tw/node/56851 （最後瀏覽日：07/24/2010）。（Rural Unions of Dapu, Erchongpu, Wanbao and Hsiangszuliao [2010]. The joint declaration of farmers self-salvation: when one is suffering, everyone comes to help!. Retrieved July 24, 2010, from the website of Taiwan Environmental Information Center: http://e-info.org.tw/node/56851）

王文宇(2001)。從財產權保障與政府權責論震災重建。臺大法學論叢。30(1)，45-72。

王必芳()。

王榆評(2000)。財產權之保障與限制：以耕地三七五減租條例為中心。憲政時代。25(4)，141-163。

反中科熱血青年聯盟（2009）。《反中科！熱血青年站出來 10/30 北上抗議》，載於反中科熱血青年聯盟網站http://antictsp.wordpress.com/?s=%E5%8F%8D%E4%B8%AD%E7%A7%91%EF%BC%81%E7%86%B1%E8%A1%80%E9%9D%92%E5%B9%B4%E7%AB%99%E5%87%BA%E4%BE%86（最後瀏覽日：10/26/2009）。（Anti-CTSP Passionate Youths Union [2009]. No CTSP! Youths, stand out for the protest in Oct. 31. Retrieved October 26, 2009, from the website of Anti-CTSP Passionate Youths Union: http://antictsp.wordpress.com/?s=%E5%8F%8D%E4%B8%AD%E7%A7%91%EF%BC%81%E7%86%B1%E8%A1%80%E9%9D%92%E5%B9%B4%E7%AB%99%E5%87%BA%E4%BE%86）