Originally by: Yu Yicha, Deputy Secretary-General of the Taiwan Association for Human Rights
Translated by: Chl and April, Interns
Edited by: Zoe Wang, Intern
The land expropriation institution in Taiwan has been the subject of repeated social controversies due to its mandatory nature, deprivation of people's property rights, and the lack of procedural propriety, and has even been criticized as unconstitutional for a long time. On March 10th, the Land Expropriation Act and the case of land expropriation of the Taoyuan Yang-Mei Sports Park will be reviewed by the Constitutional Court. The plaintiffs contend that the expropriation process in this case did not involve substantial public participation before reaching an agreement, and the expropriation order lacks consideration in public interest, necessity and violates the principle of proportionality, thus seriously infringing on the rights of the landowners. Therefore, the legal team filed a constitutional lawsuit in hopes that the Constitutional Court would examine in depth the circumstances of the case, as well as the infringement of the rights of the Land Acquisition Act. At 10 a.m., March 10th, a press conference was held at the entrance of the Constitutional Court by the plaintiffs, the legal team, and civil society organizations to explain the controversy over the Yang-Mei Sports Park and the Land Acquisition Act before submitting the constitutional lawsuit.
Yu Yicha (余宜家), the Deputy Secretary-General of Taiwan Association for Human Rights explained, Yang-mei Sports Park is located on the Eastside of National Highway No. 1, Yangmei Interchange. The project is divided into two phases, with the first phase of about 4.57 hectares of land acquired by general means of land expropriation, and commissioned to be used as a taekwondo training base and sports stadium. The Stadium Complex, which will be commissioned in July this year, occupies only part of the area to be acquired in Phase I. There is a large area of land to the south of the Stadium Complex which has been acquired but not yet utilized, and there is also land to the north of the Stadium Complex (to the north of Yu-Cheng Road) which is apparently not in demand due to the 12-meter road obstruction. Therefore, regardless of the need for or the zoning of the area for the sports park, it warrants a review of the necessity for land acquisition, in terms of the outcome, it is clearly another case of over-expropriation. On the other hand, the plan of the sports complex and the necessity of land expropriation is also one of the main controversies in this case. The land was zoned for urban planning in 1973. There hasn’t been any assessment of the need for a sports stadium in this area in spite of more than 50 years of dramatic changes in economic, social and demographic conditions. The necessity of its construction remains questionable.
Huang Jen-An (黃仁安), one of the plaintiffs, contested that land expropriation was an injustice under the authoritarian system. Taiwan has moved from martial law to democratization, and through the efforts of transitional justice, it has progressively reviewed and made reparations for the assaults caused by state violence during the period of White Terror. Today, through universal suffrage, transition of power from one party to another has become a normalized practice, which is even more impressive to the whole world. However, the injustice of the draconian law and the arbitrariness and arrogance of the executive power hidden under the authoritarian system have not yet been faced squarely. Land expropriation is a very obvious example. Fortunately, due to the Constitutional Court Procedure Act (憲法訴訟法), it provides further guarantees for people to seek relief through legal procedures. At the same time, he hopes that the Yangmei Sports Park expropriation case can serve as a stepping stone to raise awareness in all sectors regarding the importance of protecting people's fundamental rights during land expropriation. When the state expropriates people's land and violates their property rights, it should be subject to constitutional supervision to uphold the significance of constitutional protection of people's rights. Jen-An continued to explain that the Yangmei Sports Park expropriation violates the principles of due process, proportionality, necessity, and fairness. Filing a constitutional lawsuit is a way for Taiwan to truly implement the rule of law and become a model for human rights in the world. In addition to the general land expropriation in this case, zone land expropriation, known as the “excess condemnation”, which has been abandoned by European and North American countries, is still being implemented by the government. The urban planning and development system has also become a means for the government to acquire land reserved for public facilities. Through this case, Jen An hopes that Taiwan's rule of law can be enhanced and comprehensive transitional justice can be truly implemented.
Attorney Weng Kuoyen (翁國彥): Land Expropriation Act (土徵條例) is vague and disproportionate, excessively violating people's rights.
Currently, Taiwan is facing many highly controversial cases of land expropriation, which are closely related to the deficiencies in the existing "Land Expropriation Act." The legal team pointed out that the "Land Expropriation Act" lacks proper legal procedures and also violates the principles of legal clarity and proportionality.
Weng Kuoyen, the lead attorney at the Cogito Law Office (義謙法律事務所), explained that the institutional framework of the "Land Expropriation Act" leads to numerous unconstitutional situations when the government expropriates people's land for public needs. Article 3 of the "Land Expropriation Act" is very vague: as long as the government deems it necessary for the "public interest" (公益需要) and falls within the listed "necessary establishments for business" (事業所必須), it can apply for the expropriation of people's land. This open-ended and unrestricted design of the system allows for easy and complete deprivation of people's property rights, creating a clear imbalance of power. For example, when establishing industrial or technology parks, the competent authorities often simply claim that the projects will "enhance the overall economic interests." Practically, almost all expropriation cases can bypass the restrictions on expropriation by employing vague reasons like "economic growth." The lack of legal density in the regulations results in the Ministry of the Interior, the central authority in charge of reviewing expropriation cases, lacking specific examination standards. This renders the review process of the land expropriation evaluation committee superficial and lacking substantive significance, as the committee almost routinely approves the cases. The current operational model of "almost all allowed, with no exceptions” (原則允許、例外不准) in land expropriation practice clearly falls short in safeguarding people's property rights. In summary, the current legal framework for land expropriation lacks sufficient clarity, excessively violating people's property rights, and goes against the proportionality principle. It should be declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court justices.
Attorney Chan Shun-Gui (詹順貴): Land Expropriation Act (土徵條例) falls short in safeguarding people's property rights, housing rights, work rights, and right to survival.
Chan Shun-Gui, the head attorney at Holistic Law Firm, explains that although Article 3-2 of the "Land Expropriation Act" states that when applying for land expropriation for public use, factors such as social, economic, cultural, environmental sustainability, and other specific expropriation plans should be considered to assess the public interest and necessity of the expropriation comprehensively. This comprehensive assessment includes qualitative and quantitative analysis. Qualitative analysis considers the possible changes in natural landscape, cultural heritage, and living conditions due to expropriation, as well as the potential impacts on environment, society, and surrounding residents, and the alignment or assistance with national sustainable development policies and land planning. Quantitative analysis involves the scale of affected population, age structure, impact on vulnerable communities' living patterns, health risks, economic aspects concerning tax revenue, food security, changes in employment or workforce transition, government's burden of establishing public facilities, and the integrity of agricultural, forestry, fisheries, and animal husbandry industries and land use.
However, the land expropriation authority, the Ministry of the Interior, has not established technical regulations or evaluation guidelines similar to the Environmental Impact Assessment factors set by the Environmental Protection Agency. As a result, when land local authorities applies for expropriation under Article 3-2 of the Land Expropriation Act, it uses abstract terms to describe the public interest and necessity of the expropriation without qualitative and quantitative analysis. Therefore, there is no meaningful comprehensive assessment in the process. The lack of strict gatekeeping process by the land expropriation review team has led to the easy expropriation of people's land (especially agricultural land vital for their livelihoods) and homes, clearly showing deficiencies in safeguarding people's property rights, housing rights, work rights, and right to survival. This violates the spirit of Article 15 of the Constitution, which guarantees people's right to life, work, and property. Under the insufficient legal framework, even if the people repeatedly seek administrative remedies for unlawful and improper expropriation, the formal application of legal provisions in administrative courts along with professional judgment (where administrative authorities enjoy decisive powers), still repeatedly result in people facing unsuccessful verdicts.
Lawyer Chien Kai-Lun (簡凱倫): Your public interest is not mine! The vagueness of expropriation for public interest is a major factor contributing to excessive and unwarranted expropriations.
Kai-Lun, also of Holistic Law Firm, points out that urban planning requires considering various interests such as the right to housing, preservation of nature and landscape resources, and historical urban context before formulating urban plans and allocating required public facilities. Land expropriation is only one means to acquire land for urban planning and is considered the most severe violation of people's rights. Therefore, referencing the German Federal Constitutional Court (since Taiwan’s land expropriation institution is modeled off of the German institution) clarified that only when there is a "particularly important and urgent public interest," can expropriation be justified. Otherwise, the government should use less intrusive methods, such as negotiations, to acquire land instead of arbitrarily using vague notions of public interest as reasons for expropriation. However, the problem lies in the vagueness of Article 3 of our "Land Expropriation Act," which currently allows any land needed for government projects to be used as a reason for expropriation. Referring the Yangmei Sports Park example again, Kai-Lun points out that it was initially planned in 1973 under the Yangmei Urban Plan. Despite the fact that urban development has significantly changed in these 50 years and during the 1993 comprehensive review, there was no assessment of whether there is still a need for sports facilities, changes in population demands and sports events, and whether nearby urban plans can accommodate such needs. Relevant evaluations were completely ignored, and the empty urban plan cannot ensure the justification for expropriation. Nevertheless, because it ostenbily falls under the category of "education, academics, and culture" as defined in Article 3 of the Land Expropriation Act, the expropriation was carried out, illustrating the typical abuse of expropriation for public interest.
Assistant Professor Lee Ming-Chih(李明芝): Land expropriation procedures violate the requirements of a justified administrative process.
Lee Ming-Chih, an assistant professor at the Department of Land Economics at National Chengchi University, emphasizes that public interest needs to be formed through debates among stakeholders. However, the current "Land Expropriation Act" does not establish such a mechanism for public interest debates. Moreover, concerning the restriction or deprivation of property rights and the freedom of residence, the Associate Justice has already ruled that urban renewal and self-reconsolidation city should follow a proper administrative process that includes "fully protecting the opportunity and time for stakeholders to express their opinions," "establishing appropriate organizations," and "ensuring that stakeholders are aware of relevant information." As land expropriation involves the most severe deprivation of people's property rights, it should be strictly observed. Although the current land expropriation system has regulations for holding public hearings, these hearings are conducted by the requisitioning authorities which therefore are prone to bias and lack objectivity. Moreover, the timing of these hearings is not even during the formal expropriation process. Before approving expropriation, the Ministry of the Interior does not require a procedure to personally hear the opinions of landowners and stakeholders, which means that their views cannot be effectively heard. Additionally, urban renewal and city land reorganization require open public hearings, and the damages caused by land expropriation far exceed those of urban renewal and city land reorganization, making it even more crucial to hold hearings for debates. However, the current land expropriation law does not have comprehensive provisions for public hearings, leading to insufficient protection of property rights for landowners and violating the requirements of a proper administrative process.
Environmental Rights Foundation (財團法人環境權保障基金會): We should review expropriation assessment regulations to eliminate excessive expropriation
Researcher Xu Mengping (徐孟平) from the Environmental Rights Foundation states that whether it is general expropriation or sectional expropriation, both involve forcibly depriving individuals of private property on behalf of the government. Even if landowners express opposition during the expropriation review process, their views are often ignored, resulting in a situation similar to administrative authority bullying. The case of Yangmei Sports Park is a prominent example of general expropriation. Initially framed as around 10 hectares for promoting balanced sports development, only 4.57 hectares were expropriated for the first phase of development, and the actual usage area falls far short of the expropriated area. Thus, the initial review of the expropriation's public interest and necessity is useless. This is true not just for general expropriation but also for partial expropriation. Under the pretext of "joint development," it serves as a means to extensively expropriate private land and houses, as seen in cases such as Taoyuan Aerotropolis, Taoyuan Green Line MRT land development, and Taipei Shezi Island. These expropriations involve hundreds to thousands of hectares of land and not only burden the expropriated individuals with petitioning efforts but also drain substantial social resources. Unfortunately, the results are often ambitious development plans, unused grass fields, or unsold concrete buildings. The expropriation review regulations need to be revised and should not become a regulation with flowery language but has no substantive meaning for requisitioning authorities, allowing them to consume our limited land resources without consequences.
