重要實務
【高雄-帝謙法律事務所/土地重要實務(50)】自耕證明書注意事項禁特定人申請之規定違憲？
2014.4.22 高雄律師-楊岡儒律師
發文單位： 司法院
解釋字號： 釋字第 581 號
解釋日期： 民國 93 年 07 月 16 日
解釋爭點：
自耕證明書注意事項禁特定人申請之規定違憲？
資料來源：
司法周刊 第 1194 期
司法院公報 第 46 卷 8 期 70-81 頁
法令月刊 第 55 卷 8 期 101-102 頁
月旦法學雜誌 第 112 期 250-251 頁
總統府公報 第 6592 號 121-135 頁
相關法條：
中華民國憲法 第 15、23 條 ( 36.01.01 )
司法院大法官審理案件法 第 5 條 ( 82.02.03 )
耕地三七五減租條例 第 19 條 ( 91.05.15 )
土地法 第 30 條 ( 90.10.31 )
解 釋 文：
「自耕能力證明書之申請及核發注意事項」 (以下稱注意事項) 係中華民國六十五年一月二十六日內政部為執行土地法第三十條之規定 (八十九年一月二十六日刪除) 所訂定。七十九年六月二十二日修正之注意事項第四點規定，公私法人、未滿十六歲或年逾七十歲之自然人、專任農耕以外之職業者及在學之學生 (夜間部學生不在此限) ，皆不得申請自耕能力證明書，致影響實質上具有自任耕作能力者收回耕地之權利，對出租人財產權增加法律所無之限制，與憲法第二十三條法律保留原則以及第十五條保障人民財產權之意旨不符，上開注意事項之規定，應不予適用。本院釋字第三四七號解釋相關部分應予變更。
理 由 書：
內政部七十九年六月二十二日修正之自耕能力證明書之申請及核發注意事項第四點，乃系爭終局判決所適用之法令，雖該注意事項已於八十九年一月二十八日停止適用，並於八十九年二月十八日廢止，因有保護聲請人基本權利之實益，依司法院大法官審理案件法第五條第一項第二款之規定，應予受理，合先敘明。
私有農地所有權之移轉，其承受人以能自耕者為限，又收回出租農地自耕，出租人須有自任耕作之能力，分別為土地法第三十條（八十九年一月二十六日刪除）、耕地三七五減租條例第十九條第一項第一款所明定。內政部基於主管機關之權限，為執行上述法律及農業發展條例等規定，於六十五年一月二十六日訂定自耕能力證明書之申請及核發注意事項（八十九年一月二十八日停止適用、八十九年二月十八日廢止）。七十九年六月二十二日修正之注意事項第四點規定，公私法人、未滿十六歲或年逾七十歲之自然人、專任農耕以外之職業者及在學之學生（夜間部學生不在此限），皆不得申請自耕能力證明書，增加農地承受人及欲收回出租農地之出租人證明其具有自任耕作能力之困難，致影響實質上具有自任耕作能力者承受農地或收回耕地之權利，對人民財產權增加法律所無之限制，尚非僅對人民產生不便或輕微影響之執行法律之細節性、技術性次要事項，與憲法第二十三條法律保留原則以及第十五條保障人民財產權之意旨不符，上開注意事項之規定，應不予適用。
七十五年十一月二十五日修正發布之上開注意事項第三點第四款規定：申請人之住所與其承受農地非在同一或毗鄰鄉（鎮、市、區）者，視為不能自耕，不准核發證明書，但交通路線距離在十五公里以內者，不在此限。此項規定嗣於七十九年六月二十二日修正為第六點第一項第二款，其內容為：承受農地與申請人之住所應在同一縣市或不同縣市毗鄰鄉（鎮、市、區）範圍內者，始得核發證明書，未考慮現代農業機械化及交通工具機動化之因素，致影響實質上具有自任耕作能力者承受農地或收回耕地之權利，與憲法第二十三條及第十五條意旨不符，本院釋字第三四七號解釋相關部分應予變更。至減租條例第十九條第一項第一款規定，與憲法第十五條保障財產權之規定並無違背，業經本院釋字第五八○號解釋在案，併此指明。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 581
Date 2004.7.16
Issue
Do the Ministry of Interior Instructions on the Application for and Issuance of Certificates of Self-Tilling Ability, Clause 4, which make certain classes of persons ineligible to apply for such certificates jeopardize the right of those who are in reality capable of self-tilling and are said Instructions thus contrary to Articles 15 and 23 of the Constitution?
Holding
The Instructions on the Application for and Issuance of Certificates of Self-Tilling Ability (hereinafter the “Instructions”) were issued by the Ministry of Interior on January 26, 1976, to bring into operation Article 30 of the Land Law (deleted on January 26, 2000). Clause 4 of the Instructions amended on June 22, 1990, which makes private and public corporate bodies, natural persons under 16 or over 70 years of age, persons in occupations other than farming, and resident students (except for students of evening schools) ineligible to apply for the certificate of self-tilling ability, thereby jeopardizing the right of those who are in reality capable of self-tilling to reclaim their farmland and imposing on lessors a restriction on their property right that is not prescribed by law, is inconsistent with the principle of reservation of law as contemplated by Article 23 of the Constitution and the purpose of Article 15 thereof in protecting the property right of the people. Accordingly, the abovementioned clause of the Instructions must be rendered inoperative, and the relevant part of the text in our Interpretation No. 347 must be modified.
Reasoning
It must be pointed out at the outset that the regulation at issue here as applied by the court in its final judgment is Clause 4 of the Instructions on the Application for and Issuance of Certificates of Self-Tilling Ability issued by the Ministry of Interior and amended on June 22, 1990, and that, while said Instructions were made inoperative on January 28, 2000, and finally repealed on February 18, 2000, we find it appropriate to take up this case under the Law of Procedure for Interpretation by the Grand Justices, Article 5, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2, as it gives practical advantage in the protection of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner.
That the transfer of private farmland may be made only to a transferee with the ability to farm the land by himself/herself and that a lessor who desires to reclaim leasehold farmland for the purpose of farming by himself must possess the self-tilling ability are clearly prescribed by the Land Law, Article 30 (deleted on January 26, 2000) and the Statute for the Reduction of Farmland Rent to 37.5 Percent, Article 19, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1. To bring into operation such statutes and the Statute for Agricultural Development as well, the Ministry of Interior, based on the power granted to it as the relevant authority, issued on January 26, 1976, the Instructions on the Application for and Issuance of Certificate of Self-Tilling Ability (rendered inoperative on January 28, 2000, and then repealed on February 18, 2000). Clause 4 of the Instructions amended on June 22, 1990, which makes private and public corporate bodies, natural persons under 16 or over 70 years of age, persons in occupations other than farming, and resident students (except for students of evening schools) ineligible to apply for the certificate of self-tilling ability, thereby increasing difficulties for a transferee of farmland and a lessor of farmland who desires to reclaim the land to prove their self-tilling ability and jeopardizing the right of those who are in reality capable of self-tilling to accept the transfer of farmland or to reclaim their farmland and imposing on lessors a restriction on their property right that is not prescribed by law, causes more than mere inconvenience and minor consequence to the people as secondary regulations concerning detail and technical matters in connection with the enforcement of law would do and is thus inconsistent with the principle of reservation of law as contemplated by Article 23 of the Constitution and the purpose of Article 15 thereof in protecting the property right of the people. Accordingly, the abovementioned clause of the Instructions must be rendered inoperative.
Furthermore, Clause 3, Subparagraph 4, of said Instructions as amended on November 25, 1986, provided: “An applicant whose domicile is not in the same or adjacent hsiang (township, city or district) as the location of the farmland transferred to him/her shall not be deemed to be able to till by himself/herself and shall not be issued a certificate therefor, unless the distance of the traffic route is not more than fifteen kilometers.” This provision was subsequently amended on June 22, 1990, and renumbered Clause 6, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2, which reads: “A certificate may be issued only if the applicant’s domicile and the farmland transferred to him/her are located in the same county or city or adjacent hsiang (township, city or district) within the boundaries of different counties or cities.” As said provision fails to take into consideration factors such as the mechanization of agriculture and motorization of transportation means, it constitutes jeopardy to the right of those who are in reality capable of self-tilling to accept transfer of farmland or reclaim their farmland and is inconsistent with the purpose of Article 15 and Article 23 of the Constitution. Thus, the relevant part of the text in our Interpretation No. 347 must be modified. Apropos, the provision of the Statute for the Reduction of Farmland Rent to 37.5 Percent, Article 19, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1, is not contrary to the provision of Article 15 of the Constitution for the protection of property rights as we have so held in our Interpretation No. 580.
' Translated by Raymond T. Chu.
解釋字號： 釋字第 581 號
解釋日期： 民國 93 年 07 月 16 日
解釋爭點：
自耕證明書注意事項禁特定人申請之規定違憲？
資料來源：
司法周刊 第 1194 期
司法院公報 第 46 卷 8 期 70-81 頁
法令月刊 第 55 卷 8 期 101-102 頁
月旦法學雜誌 第 112 期 250-251 頁
總統府公報 第 6592 號 121-135 頁
相關法條：
中華民國憲法 第 15、23 條 ( 36.01.01 )
司法院大法官審理案件法 第 5 條 ( 82.02.03 )
耕地三七五減租條例 第 19 條 ( 91.05.15 )
土地法 第 30 條 ( 90.10.31 )
解 釋 文：
「自耕能力證明書之申請及核發注意事項」 (以下稱注意事項) 係中華民國六十五年一月二十六日內政部為執行土地法第三十條之規定 (八十九年一月二十六日刪除) 所訂定。七十九年六月二十二日修正之注意事項第四點規定，公私法人、未滿十六歲或年逾七十歲之自然人、專任農耕以外之職業者及在學之學生 (夜間部學生不在此限) ，皆不得申請自耕能力證明書，致影響實質上具有自任耕作能力者收回耕地之權利，對出租人財產權增加法律所無之限制，與憲法第二十三條法律保留原則以及第十五條保障人民財產權之意旨不符，上開注意事項之規定，應不予適用。本院釋字第三四七號解釋相關部分應予變更。
理 由 書：
內政部七十九年六月二十二日修正之自耕能力證明書之申請及核發注意事項第四點，乃系爭終局判決所適用之法令，雖該注意事項已於八十九年一月二十八日停止適用，並於八十九年二月十八日廢止，因有保護聲請人基本權利之實益，依司法院大法官審理案件法第五條第一項第二款之規定，應予受理，合先敘明。
私有農地所有權之移轉，其承受人以能自耕者為限，又收回出租農地自耕，出租人須有自任耕作之能力，分別為土地法第三十條（八十九年一月二十六日刪除）、耕地三七五減租條例第十九條第一項第一款所明定。內政部基於主管機關之權限，為執行上述法律及農業發展條例等規定，於六十五年一月二十六日訂定自耕能力證明書之申請及核發注意事項（八十九年一月二十八日停止適用、八十九年二月十八日廢止）。七十九年六月二十二日修正之注意事項第四點規定，公私法人、未滿十六歲或年逾七十歲之自然人、專任農耕以外之職業者及在學之學生（夜間部學生不在此限），皆不得申請自耕能力證明書，增加農地承受人及欲收回出租農地之出租人證明其具有自任耕作能力之困難，致影響實質上具有自任耕作能力者承受農地或收回耕地之權利，對人民財產權增加法律所無之限制，尚非僅對人民產生不便或輕微影響之執行法律之細節性、技術性次要事項，與憲法第二十三條法律保留原則以及第十五條保障人民財產權之意旨不符，上開注意事項之規定，應不予適用。
七十五年十一月二十五日修正發布之上開注意事項第三點第四款規定：申請人之住所與其承受農地非在同一或毗鄰鄉（鎮、市、區）者，視為不能自耕，不准核發證明書，但交通路線距離在十五公里以內者，不在此限。此項規定嗣於七十九年六月二十二日修正為第六點第一項第二款，其內容為：承受農地與申請人之住所應在同一縣市或不同縣市毗鄰鄉（鎮、市、區）範圍內者，始得核發證明書，未考慮現代農業機械化及交通工具機動化之因素，致影響實質上具有自任耕作能力者承受農地或收回耕地之權利，與憲法第二十三條及第十五條意旨不符，本院釋字第三四七號解釋相關部分應予變更。至減租條例第十九條第一項第一款規定，與憲法第十五條保障財產權之規定並無違背，業經本院釋字第五八○號解釋在案，併此指明。
J. Y. Interpretation No. 581
Date 2004.7.16
Issue
Do the Ministry of Interior Instructions on the Application for and Issuance of Certificates of Self-Tilling Ability, Clause 4, which make certain classes of persons ineligible to apply for such certificates jeopardize the right of those who are in reality capable of self-tilling and are said Instructions thus contrary to Articles 15 and 23 of the Constitution?
Holding
The Instructions on the Application for and Issuance of Certificates of Self-Tilling Ability (hereinafter the “Instructions”) were issued by the Ministry of Interior on January 26, 1976, to bring into operation Article 30 of the Land Law (deleted on January 26, 2000). Clause 4 of the Instructions amended on June 22, 1990, which makes private and public corporate bodies, natural persons under 16 or over 70 years of age, persons in occupations other than farming, and resident students (except for students of evening schools) ineligible to apply for the certificate of self-tilling ability, thereby jeopardizing the right of those who are in reality capable of self-tilling to reclaim their farmland and imposing on lessors a restriction on their property right that is not prescribed by law, is inconsistent with the principle of reservation of law as contemplated by Article 23 of the Constitution and the purpose of Article 15 thereof in protecting the property right of the people. Accordingly, the abovementioned clause of the Instructions must be rendered inoperative, and the relevant part of the text in our Interpretation No. 347 must be modified.
Reasoning
It must be pointed out at the outset that the regulation at issue here as applied by the court in its final judgment is Clause 4 of the Instructions on the Application for and Issuance of Certificates of Self-Tilling Ability issued by the Ministry of Interior and amended on June 22, 1990, and that, while said Instructions were made inoperative on January 28, 2000, and finally repealed on February 18, 2000, we find it appropriate to take up this case under the Law of Procedure for Interpretation by the Grand Justices, Article 5, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2, as it gives practical advantage in the protection of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner.
That the transfer of private farmland may be made only to a transferee with the ability to farm the land by himself/herself and that a lessor who desires to reclaim leasehold farmland for the purpose of farming by himself must possess the self-tilling ability are clearly prescribed by the Land Law, Article 30 (deleted on January 26, 2000) and the Statute for the Reduction of Farmland Rent to 37.5 Percent, Article 19, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1. To bring into operation such statutes and the Statute for Agricultural Development as well, the Ministry of Interior, based on the power granted to it as the relevant authority, issued on January 26, 1976, the Instructions on the Application for and Issuance of Certificate of Self-Tilling Ability (rendered inoperative on January 28, 2000, and then repealed on February 18, 2000). Clause 4 of the Instructions amended on June 22, 1990, which makes private and public corporate bodies, natural persons under 16 or over 70 years of age, persons in occupations other than farming, and resident students (except for students of evening schools) ineligible to apply for the certificate of self-tilling ability, thereby increasing difficulties for a transferee of farmland and a lessor of farmland who desires to reclaim the land to prove their self-tilling ability and jeopardizing the right of those who are in reality capable of self-tilling to accept the transfer of farmland or to reclaim their farmland and imposing on lessors a restriction on their property right that is not prescribed by law, causes more than mere inconvenience and minor consequence to the people as secondary regulations concerning detail and technical matters in connection with the enforcement of law would do and is thus inconsistent with the principle of reservation of law as contemplated by Article 23 of the Constitution and the purpose of Article 15 thereof in protecting the property right of the people. Accordingly, the abovementioned clause of the Instructions must be rendered inoperative.
Furthermore, Clause 3, Subparagraph 4, of said Instructions as amended on November 25, 1986, provided: “An applicant whose domicile is not in the same or adjacent hsiang (township, city or district) as the location of the farmland transferred to him/her shall not be deemed to be able to till by himself/herself and shall not be issued a certificate therefor, unless the distance of the traffic route is not more than fifteen kilometers.” This provision was subsequently amended on June 22, 1990, and renumbered Clause 6, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2, which reads: “A certificate may be issued only if the applicant’s domicile and the farmland transferred to him/her are located in the same county or city or adjacent hsiang (township, city or district) within the boundaries of different counties or cities.” As said provision fails to take into consideration factors such as the mechanization of agriculture and motorization of transportation means, it constitutes jeopardy to the right of those who are in reality capable of self-tilling to accept transfer of farmland or reclaim their farmland and is inconsistent with the purpose of Article 15 and Article 23 of the Constitution. Thus, the relevant part of the text in our Interpretation No. 347 must be modified. Apropos, the provision of the Statute for the Reduction of Farmland Rent to 37.5 Percent, Article 19, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1, is not contrary to the provision of Article 15 of the Constitution for the protection of property rights as we have so held in our Interpretation No. 580.
' Translated by Raymond T. Chu.
今日瀏覽人數：16033 總瀏覽人數：9706268
|
帝謙高雄法律事務所 | 關於高雄律師 | 高雄法律顧問 | 高雄律師服務項目 | 不動產律師 | 高雄律師專欄 | 高雄律師法律諮詢 | 高雄律師最新消息 | 聯絡高雄律師 |
|
電話：(07)558-9090 傳真：(07)558-9010 地址：813 高雄市左營區明華一路350號11樓之2  Copyright © 2013-2015 Deep-Change Law Firm, All Rights Reserved 網頁設計:uuTaiwan |
友情連結 |
帝謙法律事務所是國內專業的律師事務所，我們提供專業的法律諮詢、民事訴訟、刑事訴訟、行政訴訟訴願、保險理賠、撰寫存證信函、律師信函、不動產法律、遺產繼承規劃、常年法律顧問、契約撰擬…及其他法律專案，高雄律師團隊經驗豐富、辦案認真，積極處理並以同理心處理每個客戶所委託的案件。