從財產權保障之觀點論土地使用管制與損失補償—美國法管制準徵收概念之引介

Abstract

土地使用管制雖未剝奪所有權，但仍可能造成財產權人嚴重的損失。美國聯邦最高法院認為財產權雖然可於某程度內被管制，但若太過分，便會構成管制準徵收，我國大法官也採取了名為特別犧牲的類似概念。惟管制何時會構成特別犧牲，始終沒有定論，而在我國實務運作下，更是問題叢生。我國行政法院一律以無法律即無補償之理由，駁回人民的訴訟，而大法官也未提出明確的判斷標準。 在借鏡美國判決後，本文發現美國大法官可分成兩種立場，而這種對立實肇因於大法官採取了不同的財產權理解。在比較這兩種財產權理解後，本文認為財產權除了是憲法保障之基本權利外，同時也是一種合理分配有限資源的社會制度。任何對財產權的解釋與保障，都是一種資源分配的決定，沒有放諸四海皆準的固定公式可資依循。土地使用管制是否構成特別犧牲的判斷也不例外，必須結合個案事實，綜合各種因素進行利益衡量。而個案衡量並不等於毫無標準，本文從美國判決中，歸納出四個重要指標，並對其操作方式作出選擇與細緻化。 在本文之模型下，土地使用管制並不易構成特別犧牲，但這不代表不保障財產權。而是一方面基於對財產權特性的認識，以及社會正義與均富目標的肯認，來考慮資源應如何分配；他方面透過健全的程序保障來確保分配結果的正當性與合理性。因此管制作成前若無利害關係人的程序參與，法院可將其撤銷。 最後，本文提出之模型必須結合我國之制度。行抽象審查之大法官並不適合採取此一模型，因此行政法院應肩負起實質審查的工作，甚至將本文所提出之模型進一步類型化，而大法官則可退居審查管制法律中是否有充分之程序保障規定等。如此一來，土地使用管制何時會構成特別犧牲的問題雖然困難，但仍有理論基礎一貫的模型可供運用，且本文之建議應是對現狀改變較小、較為可行之轉變。

Although land use regulation does not deprive people’s property right, it may still cause serious loss to property interest holders. The U.S. Supreme Court stated that while property might be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation went too far it would be recognized as a taking. The Constitutional Court in Taiwan also adopted a similar idea named as the principle of “special sacrifice”. However, there is no conclusion about when a regulation in question would constitute special sacrifice. The question becomes even more problematic if coupled with judicial practices in Taiwan. When dealing with cases relating to takings, the administrative court always dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint due to lack of compensation in the law, and the Constitutional Court also failed to give a clear standard for judgment of the constitution of special sacrifice. When analyzing the U.S. Supreme Court decisions, I find out that the opinions of the Justices can be divided into two kinds, and I believe this difference results from different understandings of property right. After comparing these two different understandings, I argue that property right is not only a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, but also a social institution for distributing limited resources. Any interpretation or protection of property right is a decision concerning the distribution of resources, and there is no set formula for making the decision. The judgment of whether land use regulation constitutes special sacrifice is no exception. It has to be made by ad hoc factual inquiries and multi-factor balancing. Nevertheless, ad hoc balancing doesn’t mean that there is no standard at all. I identify four important guiding principles from the U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Since there are different interpretations of these principles, I shall choose the interpretations and further refine the principles according to my understanding of property right stated above. Land use regulation does not easily constitute special sacrifice according to my model, but it does not mean that I don’t favor the protection of property right. My proposition on the one hand is based on the special character of property right and the pursuit of social justice through fair distribution of resources; on the other hand is to ensure the legitimacy and fairness of the distribution through reasonable procedural protection. Therefore, if there is no procedural participation from property interest holders before the decision of the regulatory authorities, the court should revoke the regulation. Finally, in order to put my model into practice, I have to take the judicial review system in Taiwan into consideration. The Constitutional Court, which is still confined to conducting abstract review, is not suited to adopt the model I advocate. Therefore, the administrative court should take the responsibility to review if the regulation goes too far and even further refine my model through precedents. As for the Constitutional Court, it can review if there is sufficient procedural protection in the statutes that authorize the regulation. As a result, although how a land use regulation in question will be deemed special sacrifice is still a difficult question, there is a workable model with consistent understanding of property right to be applied, and the suggestion I make should be a practical and less drastic adjustment to the status quo.