依類型 族群 主題   
 
 
2021.08.11
原住民保留地違法使用問題:以身分限制及使用限制為中心
族群: 跨族群  
主題: 法律政治、文化慣習  
作者 林泓均
學校系所 國立臺灣大學科際整合法律學研究所
地點 全臺 全部  
研究內容

原住民保留地制度存在已久,然其制度本身特殊之所有權移轉及地上權設定限制卻也衍生出諸多爭議。尤其體現在其所造成之所有權移轉缺乏彈性,以致於保留地所有權人融資困難,難以實現制度本身之「保障原住民生計」目的。該目的難以實現之現實也促成了所有權人將保留地轉用之誘因,而轉用之態樣又以將保留地出賣給非原住民並由具承受資格者借名登記,或設定地上權予非原住民為最大宗。又此兩種轉用之態樣,是否違反保留地管理相關法規及其違反之法律行為效力為何,又因實務上存在見解歧異而經最高法院108年台上大字第1636號裁定提案至民事大法庭。
對此,前述所有權移轉及地上權設定之限制,本文分以「身分限制」、「使用限制」稱之。又前述違反保留地相關限制規定之法律行為效力,因為對財產權限制強烈,並可能有規範密度不足及違反法律保留原則之疑義,是應該要先經過憲法之審查再進行民事上法律行為效力之討論。而本文審查之結果認為,所有權移轉之「身分限制」在納入保留地隱含的文化目的後應屬合憲;地上權設定之「使用限制」則因依現行條文文義應無限制意旨,且若限制存在,其對財產權將限制過劇且不利於原住民土地經濟利用而屬違憲。而大法庭提案中違反「身分限制」之法律效果,考量其目的在憲法上正當,應嚇阻不法行為以維持法秩序一體性,並保障原住民生計避免其土地流逝,是認為以借名登記方式規避「身分限制」之法律行為效力應為「無效」;而「使用限制」則除現行條文不應解釋為有限制地上權設定之意旨外,考量該規定之違憲疑義,是更應該尊重私法上契約自由,而保有設定地上權予非原住民之空間,亦得達成保障原住民生計之立法目的,是該法律行為應為「有效」。
而對前述提案應採「嚴守身分限制、放寬使用限制」之建議,立法論上本文則認為應思考如何設計暢通之融資管道,以及對地上權設定一定年限作為制度配套。

The system of reserving lands for indigenous people had existed for a long time, and controversies had aroused due to the unique limitations to land ownership transfer and establishment of superficies of the system. The disputes especially embodied in the difficulty for reserved land owners to acquire loan from financial institutions, which is caused by the lack of flexibility to land ownership transfer. These flaws also render the goal of the system itself, to protect the livelihood of indigenous people, impossible to achieve. Facing the reality of unachievable goal, many land owners convert the original use of reserved lands. The type of conversion mainly divided into (1) selling the reserved lands to non-indigenous people who then borrow the names from people who are qualified to register; or (2) establishing superficies for non-indigenous people. The disagreement between supreme court precedents regarding whether these two types of use conversion violate the related laws and regulations and what would be the legal validity of these violations, had rendered the proposal of Supreme Court Judgment 108 Tai-Shang-Da-Tzu 1636 to the Grand Court.
The Thesis refers the aforementioned limitation to land ownership transfer and establishment of superficies repectively to “Identity Limitation” and “Usage Limitation”. Also, the legal validity of violating related restrictions on reserved lands (as previously mentioned) shall be reviewed under Constitution Law, then can it be discussed under the frame of validity of civil legal action. The reason for this reviewing order is due to the strong limitation the legal validity imposed on property right, and may render the problem of insufficient regulations and even the violation of Principle of “Vorbehalt des Gesetzes”. The Thesis reviews the questions and concludes that: (1) after including the cultural purpose implied by the system of reserving lands, the “Identity Limitation” on land ownership transfer shall be constitutional; (2) the “Usage Limitation” of the establishment of superficies, on the other hand, currently there are no legal provisions suggesting the existence of that limitation, even if the limitation were exist, it would impose grave restrictions on people’s property right, and would be a disadvantage for the economic use of the lands of indigenous people, hence the “Usage Limitation” shall be unconstitutional. As to the legal validity of violating “Identity Limitation” mentioned in the proposal, the Thesis considers the purpose justified under Constitution Law, illegal actions shall be deterred in order to maintain the integrity of legal system, also to protect the livelihood of indigenous people by avoiding their lands from disappearing, therefore the validity of avoiding “Identity Limitation” by borrowing other’s name for registration is void. Regarding “Usage Limitation”, the legal action shall be “valid”, since other than there are no current legal provisions can be explained to derive legislators’ intention to limit the establishment of superficies, considering the problem of this unconstitutional regulation, the principal of contract freedom under private law regime shall be respected more. To retain the right for establishing the superficies for non-indigenous people, can also attain the goal of protecting the livelihood of indigenous people.
Facing the suggestion adopted by the aforementioned proposal, to “strictly abide by Identity Limitation, and relax on compliance of Usage Limitation”, the Thesis states that the responding means shall be considering how to design a smooth financing channel, and how to set a certain deadline for the establishment of superficies as coordinated measures under the legislation regime.