2016年7月22日 星期五

Land grabs spark fresh controversy

After the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came to power following January’s elections, many are hoping that the party will implement a fresh approach to how the nation is governed and move Taiwan toward being a true democratic country with genuine constitutional politics.
One of the major indicators of whether this might come to pass is the issue of land rights and expropriations. This practice involves a violation of citizens’ constitutionally guaranteed rights, and as such, its application necessitates compliance with certain very strict criteria.
Any expropriation must be in the public interest. It must also be absolutely necessary and proportionate, and should only be used as a last resort. If any of these criteria are not met, then there is reason to question whether such action is constitutional. Land expropriation is an important issue, and one that involves basic human rights.
The problem is that following many years of authoritarian rule, the power to define exactly what is meant by “in the public interest” or “necessary” remains in the hands of those who hold power. In addition, in the pursuit of economic growth and political expediency, land expropriations have actually become the preferred and indeed least expensive option. It is a measure government officials have been resorting to far too easily, and one that has become almost par for the course.
This has been especially true in recent years. With government finances being in such a precarious state, authorities have resorted to zone expropriation — wresting land from vulnerable farmers and putting it up for sale. This has forced many Taiwanese to move, and this is a serious infringement of their basic human rights. It is a problem that needs to be addressed.
There have been many important pronouncements by judicial bodies on the chaotic situation that surrounds forced land expropriations.
The Council of Grand Justices has been clear about the need for due process and that public hearings need to be held to ensure that any land expropriations are done only in the public interest and out of necessity.
The council’s Constitutional Interpretation No. 709, which rules on the provisions of the Urban Renewal Act (都市更新條例), states that the act “should require the competent authority to conduct hearings in public, allow interested parties to appear and present their statements and arguments orally during the proceedings and explain their rationale for adopting or declining the arguments after taking into consideration all the records of the hearings.
In this fashion the act can be made consistent with the meaning and purpose of the constitutional guarantee of the people’s rights to property and freedom of residence.”
The Supreme Administrative Court has also on several occasions warned that land expropriation should only be considered as a last resort. It did so explicitly in its 2012 Ruling No. 1067, in its 2010 Ruling No. 1276 — because of the implications for the state’s appropriation of citizens’ property rights — and in Ruling No. 355, which was issued that same year and which clearly states that it should only be used when there are no other options available.
Unfortunately, despite the frequency and clarity of such rulings, the relevant authorities have tended to turn a deaf ear.
Now that a DPP-led government is in power, the land expropriation controversy has been reignited by the Tainan City Government in a case that is attracting the most attention: the railway’s relocation underground and to the east.
On July 2, the Ministry of the Interior’s Construction and Planning Agency convened an Expanded Urban Renewal Task Force Review Committee. If the meeting is examined from the perspective of the issues raised here, there are subtle differences between the committee’s and the previous approach, but it is by no means certain that the committee is an adequate substitute for the public hearings that the Grand Justices say should be required.
Did the government provide groups opposed to the proposals with substantial information in advance? Have those in charge of the process isolated the crux of the problem and given the participants the opportunity to meet and present their various arguments for discussion? Questions remain about these issues.
In addition, the Tainan City Government and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications (MOTC) still need to explain exactly why relocating the railway to the east would be a last resort.
During a meeting, Tainan Urban and Rural Development Department Director Wu Hsin-hsiu (吳欣修) said: “Of course there are many different ways of proceeding, but the government cannot choose any one of these, it has to find the one that entails relatively little conflict.”
MOTC Railway Reconstruction Bureau (鐵工局) Secretary-General Wen Tai-hsin (溫代欣) also eventually conceded that the eastward relocation was “not the only blueprint on the table.”
Tainan Mayor William Lai (賴清德) said that there were many other options for the construction project, but that the eastward relocation had “many advantages” and that the construction was “highly viable.”
These recommendations for the option notwithstanding, does the eastward relocation actually fulfill the criteria of being a last resort, and therefore comply with the conditions required for land expropriation?
These requirements were originally slated for inclusion in proposed amendments to the Land Expropriation Act (土地徵收條例) in early 2012, but they never made it into the amended legislation due to objections by the then-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government.
The DPP can still achieve these goals through the implementation of the Administrative Procedure Act (行政程序法) or other legislation.
Now that it has recognized the Aboriginal community’s right to informed consent, the government should have the courage to take Taiwan to the next stage.
Hsu Shih-jung is professor of land economics at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
發表於Taipei Times, 2016/7/18.

謊言計畫共和國

三年前的今天,苗栗大埔張藥房遭劉政鴻強拆,致使張家屋毀人亡,後來雖贏了官司,違法的土地徵收終被撤銷,但巨大傷害卻已造成。如今,重返大埔,放眼望去,除了建商蓋樓出售及滿街仲介廣告外,還能看到什麼?看得見劉政鴻當初所宣稱的高科技設廠及就業人潮嗎?沒有的,然而,這卻是大埔強制徵收的基礎。

類似情形也出現在其他徵收地區,也就是,政府往往以華麗的計畫藍圖來進行土地徵收,但是,後來卻發現這些計畫藍圖其實都是謊言時,該怎麼辦?一切能回到從前嗎?當氣象局因颱風路徑預測不準而招致批評時,又有誰因為政府計畫藍圖的預測不準而被責難,並要求承擔責任?台語俗諺「頭過身就過」,當徵收來的土地沒有實現原先計畫目標時,我們卻習以市場景氣低迷來合理化原先預測的不準確,並不以為意。然而,那些因為預測不準而家破人亡的被徵收戶,他們就該死?
不論是中央或地方政府,經建單位浮報經濟成長及就業增加數字、科技單位浮報廠商設廠增加數字、都計單位浮報人口增加數字、交通單位浮報運量及旅客增加數字…,政府各單位的計畫藍圖似皆成為謊言計畫,裡面充斥浮誇數字,所使用的辭藻也都是夢幻般的華麗與抽象。附隨地,各單位也都培植了許多顧問及規劃公司,它們配合著政府及產業界需要,成為夢想及謊言的製造機器。
更嚴重的,這樣的謊言計畫是與知識體系緊密連結。學者建構了許多預測推估模型,並運用數學或統計公式、符號及數字,讓民眾誤以為那就是單純科學及客觀知識。他們信奉價值與事實分離原則,假設政治及社會情境不變,並將無法量化的價值排除,由此生產出許多不食人間煙火的預測報告與論文。許多學者進而受聘為各式委員會成員,為此謊言計畫背書,產官學三方共同建構了這個「謊言計畫共和國」。
都市計畫及土地徵收大概就是建立在這些謊言計畫之上,不少土豪劣紳更是趁機大撈一筆,至於社會弱勢,則是隨時準備要被犧牲。張藥房強拆及張大哥含恨而終,讓我們清楚看見這個詐騙及壓迫的罪惡結構與集團!
(作者為政治大學地政學系教授兼第三部門研究中心主任)
發表於《自由時報》,2016/7/18, A.15。

2016年7月13日 星期三

徵收是最後迫不得已手段

民進黨上台,大家都期盼新政府的施政能夠展現新氣象,將台灣帶往真正的民主憲政國家,其中,土地徵收就成為一個重要的指標。土地徵收強制剝奪了人民在《憲法》上所保障的權益,因此它的採用一定要符合非常嚴謹的必備要件,如公益性、必要性、比例性、最後迫不得已等,否則就會有違憲之虞,也就是說土地徵收是重要的基本人權課題。

便宜行事侵害人權

然而,過往長期威權統治,使得公益性及必要性的詮釋權完全由掌權者所獨斷,在追求經濟成長及提升行政效率的名義下,土地徵收反而成為最優先及最便宜的手段,行政官員非常隨意的進行土地徵收,並且已經養成了壞習慣,動不動就進行土地徵收。尤其是近年來,政府財政窘困,更是大肆採用區段徵收,搶奪弱勢農民的土地進行標售,這都使得許多國人被強制迫遷,基本人權遭致嚴重侵害,問題非常的嚴重。
對於土地徵收的前述亂象,其實司法機關早已有許多重要的指示,例如大法官明確指出應該履行正當法律程序,由舉辦聽證會來確定徵收的公益性及必要性,如釋字第709號:「應規定由主管機關以公開方式舉辦聽證,使利害關係人得到場以言詞為意見之陳述及論辯後,斟酌全部聽證紀錄,說明採納及不採納之理由作成核定,始無違於《憲法》保障人民財產權及居住自由之意旨。」
最高行政法院也不斷告誡,土地徵收應是最後不得已措施,如101年度判字第1067號判決:「土地徵收,係國家為實現所欲興辦公共事業之公益的最後不得已措施」;99年度判字第1276號判決:「土地徵收乃藉國家公權力之行使,強制取得人民之財產權,對於人民之財產權發生嚴重影響,為不得已之手段」;99年度判字第355號判決亦明確指出:「土地徵收是國家取得土地所有權最後不得已之手段,因而土地徵收僅在無其他方法可資利用時始可。」然而,非常遺憾地,言者諄諄,聽者藐藐,過往的行政機關根本予以忽視。
新政府上台,土地徵收爭議是由台南市府拉開序幕,最受注目個案應為台南鐵路東移案。若以前述論點來審視內政部營建署於7月2日所召開的「都市計劃擴大專案小組審查會」,其作法雖與以往略有不同,然而該會議是否能夠取代大法官所要求的聽證會?政府是否已於事前提供充分資訊予自救會?主事者是否已確定問題爭點,讓雙方都能聚焦並進行有意義的論辯?這皆不無疑義。 

盼新政府實現正義

另外,台南市政府及交通部是否應該說明為何鐵路東移是最後迫不得已的措施?但是當台南市都發局局長吳欣修於會中公開宣稱:「當然很多工法都可行,但政府不能隨便選一個,要找一個衝擊較小的工法」;交通部主任秘書溫代欣也終於承認東移版並非「行政院唯一核定的版本」;賴清德市長也重申工程施作方式有許多種,而東移版乃是具「多項優勢」及「工程可行性高」。但是,不論是優劣或可行性評估,是否都沒有真正回應鐵路東移應是最後迫不得已措施?那這還符合土地徵收要件嗎?
2012年初《土地徵收條例》進行修正,那時修法草案原來就是要把前述重點皆納入,惟因國民黨政府反對而無法畢其功於一役。現今民進黨已全面執政,縱然該條例尚未修正,但仍可以依《行政程序法》及其他法令來實現土地正義。期盼新政府在肯認原住民知情同意權後,更能夠勇敢跨出那一步,讓台灣真正的脫胎換骨。 
政治大學地政學系教授兼第三部門研究中心主任
(發表於《蘋果日報》,2016/07/13,http://www.appledaily.com.tw/appledaily/article/headline/20160713/37305555/)