論我國土地徵收制度之正當行政程序 －以釋字第709號解釋為中心

A Study on administrative due process of Land Expropriation Procedure － Based on Judicial Yuan Interpretation Number 709

邱文正(Wen-Cheng Chiu)

指導教授 ： 陳櫻琴

中原大學/法學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2016年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu201600021

摘要

土地徵收，係基於公共利益需要，由國家強制取得或剝奪人民財產權的權力。土地徵收應首重公益性及必要性俾於增進公共利益之同時，兼顧人民權益之確保。基於憲法第23條之意旨，土地徵收絕對不是用地取得之優先手段，而是最後不得已之手段。
老舊社區急需藉由都市更新帶來繁榮，相對也帶來一些問題，最有名案例當屬「文林苑」案，司法院大法官會議於2013年4月26日做出釋字第709號解釋文，針對都市更新條例第10條第1項，有關主管機關核准都市更新事業概要之程序規定，未設置適當組織以審議都市更新事業概要，且未確保利害關係人知悉相關資訊及適時陳述意見之機會與憲法要求之正當行政程序不符。第10條第2項有關申請核准都市更新事業概要時應具備之同意比率之規定，不符憲法要求之正當行政程序。第19條第3項前段規定，並未要求主管機關應將該計畫相關資訊，對更新單元內申請人以外之其他土地及合法建築物所有權人分別為送達，且未規定由主管機關以公開方式舉辦聽證，亦不符憲法要求之正當行政程序。相關機關應依本解釋意旨就上開違憲部分，於本解釋公布之日起一年內檢討修正，逾期未完成者，該部分規定失其效力。此一解釋援用憲法第八條「正當法律程序」，延伸出「正當行政程序」，本文即以此一解釋為中心，檢討公用徵收及都市更新之「正當行政程序」。
就都市更新事務之整體性觀之，其涉及憲法保障之財產權與居住自由等基本權利，甚至亦觸及個人主體性及人格自由發展之一般行為自由；現行都市更新條例對於都市更新各階段程序，皆稍嫌不足，期待立法機關與行政機關檢討改進，建立正當行政程序以確保憲法保障之基本權。

關鍵字

土地徵收 ； 正當行政程序 ； 都市更新 ； 財產權 ； 文林苑

並列摘要

Land expropriation is the power used by a country to forcibly expropriate or limit people’s property rights for the public interest. Land expropriation foremost emphasizes the public welfare and necessary character of the expropriation to serve the public interest while protecting the people’s rights as well. According to Article 23 of the Constitution, land expropriation is definitely not a primary method to acquire land, it is rather a method of last resort. While urban renewal may instantly upgrade an old community and bring prosperity to the community, it may also cause some issues. A prominent case in point is the “Wenlin Yuan” case. In its Interpretation No.709 of April 26, 2013, the Council of Grand Justices comments that Paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Urban Renewal Act, which article contains procedural regulations regarding the competent authority’s approval of urban renewal business summaries, does not stipulate an appropriate organization to review such urban renewal business summaries, and does not safeguard stakeholders’ rights to access information nor timely opportunity to present their opinions—which is not consistent with “due administrative process” required under the Constitution. Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the same Act, containing stipulations regarding the proportions of agreement to be presented at the time of requesting approval for an urban renewal business summary, is likewise not consistent with due administrative process required under the Constitution. The first subparagraph of Paragraph 3 of Article 19 does not require the competent authority to send related information of such plan to people (i.e., the legal owners of the buildings and lands) other than the applicant of the renewal unit, nor does it require the competent authority to hold public hearings, which is inconsistent with due administrative process required under the Constitution. The related agency must, in accordance with the meaning of the interpretation, within one year of the publication of this Interpretation, review and revise the parts of the Act which violate the Constitution. Failure to timely do so will render those parts of the Act ineffective. This Interpretation extends “due legal process” of Article 8 of the Constitution to “due administrative process”. This paper takes this Interpretation as the center piece of a discussion and review of “due administrative process” in the context of land expropriation and urban renewal. The larger picture of urban renewal involves such fundamental rights as property rights and freedom of residence protected by the Constitution. The issue even relates to such general freedoms of conduct as individual subjectivity and individual freedom. The Urban Renewal Act currently in force is somewhat lacking with respect to various processes of urban renewal. It is hoped that the legislative and administrative agencies would review and improve the Act to establish due administrative process to safeguard citizens’ fundamental rights protected under the Constitution.

並列關鍵字

Land expropriation ； due administrative process ； urban renewal ； property right ； Wenlin Yuan

參考文獻

3.玉珍玲，論都市更新之公共利益－從司法院大法官第709號解釋及正當法律程序原則出發，法學新論，第45期，頁2-3（2013）。

18.林明鏘，都市更新之公共利益－兼評司法院大法官釋字709號解釋，台灣法學雜誌，第227期，頁126（2013）。

19.林明鏘，論我國都市更新法制，國立臺灣大學法學論叢，第26卷第3期，頁119-121（1997）。

33.游千慧，我國實施都市更新制度之檢討與修法方向研析，土地問題研究季刊，第11卷第42期，頁23-30（2012）。

13.李震山，（論憲政改革與基本權利保障），國立中正大學法學集刊，第18期，頁54（2005）。