| 摘要: | 現行自辦市地重劃普遍由重劃公司主導，在重劃公司追求利益最大化的情況 下，導致許多不同意參加重劃的土地所有權人被強制納入重劃範圍，進而引發社 會抗爭。對此，司法院釋字 739 號解釋針對獎勵土地所有權人辦理市地重劃辦法 作出解釋，其認為籌備會的成立門檻以及主管機關核定擬辦重劃範圍及重劃計畫 書的程序違反正當行政程序原則，且籌備會的職權違反法律保留原則。
為因應司法院釋字 739 號解釋，內政部即修正獎勵土地所有權人辦理市地重 劃辦法，以符合本號解釋之意旨。然而，自辦市地重劃將侵害不願參與自辦市地 重劃的土地所有權人財產權之存續保障，司法院釋字 739 號對於土地所有權人之 財產權保障是否足夠，是否按照本號解釋之意旨修正後即可正當化對不同意參加 自辦市地重劃的土地所有權人之財產權侵害?此即本文討論之課題。
本文認為自辦市地重劃與公辦市地重劃並無差異，僅為實施程序的不同，其 均具備強制性，侵害土地所有權人財產權之存續保障，與土地徵收無異，必須從 土地徵收的角度看待市地重劃制度。進而，本文認為現行市地重劃制度不符合土 地徵收的憲法要求，應屬違憲。再者，市地重劃屬於國家核心任務，涉及強制力 作用，國家不得將市地重劃任務民營化。自辦市地重劃乃吸收民間資金與資源以 協助國家完成國家任務，國家並未放棄執行其任務，自辦市地重劃僅係部分程序 交由重劃會進行，主管機關對於自辦市地重劃個案仍保有最終決定權限，因此自 辦市地重劃屬於功能民營化。
是否將市地重劃部分程序交由土地所有權人組成重劃會進行，應由立法者親 自決定，然自辦市地重劃之實施程序則得授權行政機關為補充規定，為相對法律 保留事項。此外，現行自辦市地重劃交由直轄市、縣(市)主管機關核准，逾越
母法授權範圍，自辦市地重劃的核准權限應在於中央主管機關。;Current self-implemented urban land consolidation (SULC) cases are generally dominated by private companies. Because the private companies are for profits, the landowners are forced to participate in the consolidation, which always attracts controversy, both in theory and practice. In this regard, Interpretation No. 739 held, that the institutional frameworks for exercising SULC were inconsistent with the due process of law, including the organization of preparatory committees and the approving procedures of the proposed consolidation ranges and consolidation projects. In addition, the competence of preparatory committee violated the principle of legal reservation.
The Ministry of the Interior, in accordance with the holdings of Interpretation No.739, amended the Encouraging Consolidation Regulation. However, can Interpretation No.739 sufficiently protect the property right of landowners? Does the amendment legalize the infringement on the property right of landowners?
Self-implemented and public-implemented urban land consolidation procedures differ in form, but both involve compulsion in substance, infringing on landowner’s property rights. Therefore, current SULC system must be regarded as compulsory acquisition of land, and current SULC regulation is incompatible with the proportionality principle under Article 23 of the Constitution.
Urban land consolidation is a core governmental power, prohibited from whole privatization. SULC system leverages private investment for activities that have traditionally fallen within the public domain. However, government has not relinquished its responsibility and retains supervision with approving authority. Therefore, SULC procedures constitute so-called functional privatization, which shall be provided in principle by primary law. Nonetheless, the competent agency can make supplementary rules. The Encouraging Consolidation Regulation empowers the county (city) governments to approve the SULC, exceeding the scope of power granted by the enabling statute. The approving power is reserved by constitution for the central government. |
