Close

一月 16, 2017

兩公約第二次國際審查-反迫遷共同聲明

今天跟居住權相關的各反迫遷團體是第二次參加兩公約國家報告審查,其實心情相當複雜,我們在下午的場次將會說明上次的5或6點關於居住權的結論性意見,幾乎都沒有被落實,因此我們十分憂心國家報告審查是否能確實影響國內的居住權狀況。

在兩公約被簽署後已立法施行第八年,從上次國家報告審查已四年,依法各項法規政策應該被全面檢討。然而就各項關於居住權的法規、政策來說,大規模的土地徵收與非正規住區拆遷仍持續進行,遊民數量與處境仍然沒有被改善,都市更新、市地重劃中的自辦市地重劃在這幾年相繼被我國的大法官宣告違反憲法;然而,至今政府仍遲遲未按照公約保障的居住權規範,全面檢討各項土地開發、土地清理與遊民政策,一項都沒有。

因此我們也對於立法上的怠惰感到憂心。感謝在場的尤美女委員在立法院的上一個會期與民間合作,共同推動《住宅法》修法,上週總統也公告實施了修正後的《住宅法》,居住權的精神被宣示性地寫在第五十三條:「居住為基本人權,其內涵應參照經濟、社會文化權利國際公約、公民與政治權利國際公約,及經濟社會文化權利委員會與人權事務委員會所作之相關意見與解釋。」然而修正後的法案卻沒有明文對迫遷所應符合的程序與實質要件有所規範,依照目前行政機關與司法機關的作法,並無法有效約束各級政府、減少違法迫遷,這樣的結果尤其是因為行政機關在修法過程的反對與阻撓。

但我們依然希望政府可以尊重專家的建議,真正落實結論性意見。我們將針對居住權表達六個建議。其中兩個分別與立法跟司法權力,另外四個則是關於不同違反居住權的類型。

第一個建議與整體立法義務相關。我們懇請專家注意到政府在會影響到居住權的處理程序中仍未建立必要性、公開透明度、磋商與民眾參與的原則,特別是在土地徵收、市地重劃、非正規住居與遊民政策的部分。我們建議專家要求政府: (1) 強制在開發計畫中進行公益性與必要性的審核;(2)主動釋出與暫定計畫中的相關資訊; (3)建立正當法律程序以確保利害關係人可以儘早參與進決策階段;(4)規劃公民參與機制。

第二項建議與公約在司法上的落實有關。我們懇請專家肯定一些司法人員在判決中開創性地引用公約保障非正規住居的居住權,例如104年度重訴字第393號與103年度訴字第260號判決,但專家必須注意到亦有若干官方見解限縮了人民透過司法來主張自己公約權利的機會,例如最高行政法院103年8月份第1次庭長法官聯席會議決議。(對政府對結論性意見之回應所做的影子報告第3頁第10點)我們建議專家要求司法部門確保可能被迫遷或已被迫遷者能獲得司法救濟,特別是缺乏保有權保障的租戶跟非正規住居。司法院應該採取措施以促進改善現況,如設立資料庫或是規劃法官培訓項目。

建議三跟四則是與三個台灣主要的開發方式有關:土地徵收、市地重劃與都市更新。我們懇請專家建議政府充分檢討與市地重劃跟土地徵收的相關法規。這兩個制度有相似的機制,而目前也有許多不足之處:比例原則、正當程序、合理補償與對被迫遷者的適當安置,如台南的鐵路地下化徵收案,高雄的果菜市場跟塭仔圳重劃案。政府應加強計劃的公共性與必要性,終止為了牟利造成不必要迫遷的區段徵收與自辦市地重劃案件,如桃園航空城、社子島、麥仔園、璞玉、國道1號、機場捷運A7站區徵收案,與淡海新市鎮。
對於都市更新,我們懇請專家建議政府應主動廢止都市更新條例,並制定符合兩公約規範的相關法規,因為目前的條例未符合正當程序、比例原則,合理補償,亦未適當安置迫遷戶,如三重大同南路的案件。我們同時也建議政府應終止所有強拆,除非該案件所在區域真的有立即性的危險。

建議五與台灣的非正規住居相關。我們懇請專家關注非正規住居,上千戶家庭正受到污名化與迫遷的威脅,如龜山大湖自辦市地重劃案、華光社區、大觀社區、旗山大溝頂、紹興社區、臥龍街、蟾蜍山社區、貴美雜貨店、三峽龍埔里劉家與新店瑠公圳迫遷案。這些居民在沒有真誠磋商與適當安置下被以民事訴訟起訴。我們建議專家強烈要求中央與地方政府停止並檢討相關規則與措施;若有強烈公共利益或急迫性而必須驅離,亦應確保居民獲得法律上的保有權保障。

最後一點建議是針對遊民的現況。我們懇請專家建議政府應突破現行戶籍制之遊民政策,制定整體的遊民政策、法律、執行細則、措施、經費預算,包含具體的目標、時間表,並邀請權利受影響者共同參與決策。包括:(1)政府現行之社會安全網,須依照遊民實際需求,全力供應適當居住處;(2)提供遊民在健康、工作、社會福利等保障措施;(3)維護街頭遊民的人身安全與生存權,採取全人觀點提供服務措施,協助遊民脫離露宿生活

除了在這些制度影響下的案件外,其他弱勢團體的居住權也應該受到保障,如樂生療養院的漢生病患,與幾個都市原住民部落如三鶯、溪洲、新北市的快樂山。

以上的建議是我們深沉的期盼。事實上,每個案件裡幾乎都有人因為迫遷而喪命,但政府依然不願負責。為此,我們要向政府表達最嚴厲的責難,也向專家表達最誠懇的請求。


Hello everyone, I am Yi-Fu from TAAFE. At present me and Ian represent more than 20 local organizations to state our announcement regarding to the issue of housing rights. We have participated in the review of 2013, and we feel quite ambivalent today. The Concluding Observations of 2013 is very valuable. They have articulated well with the NGO’s campaign. However, the government in general does not seem to take them seriously enough. Although we have demanded the government to take the advices of the experts, none of them regarding to housing rights are fulfilled. Other indicators are not promising as well. Eight years have passed since the promulgation of the Enforcement Act of the two covenants, following which all regulations violating the Covenants should be amended or at least reassessed. However, not even one such reassessment has been carried out. Large scale evictions induced by land expropriation and informal settlement clearance are still taking place. The amount and situation of the homeless has not been improved. It is also noteworthy that even part of the regulations of the urban renewal and urban land consolidation have been announced as unconstitutional since 2013, the government has not made effective amendments to address relevant problems.

Therefore, we are concerned with the government’s good faith in regard to the review. We are not sure if the government is really willing to meet the human rights standard, or simply take the review as some legal formalities. If the government really wants to do something, legislative recognition of the rights is the fundamental task. Thanks to Mrs. Yu who has cooperated with the civil society to amend the Housing Act in the last session of the Legislative Yuan. The amended code states that the right to housing is a basic human right, and its interpretations should accord with the two covenants and the general comments. However, the Ministry of the Interior refused to further specify the procedural and substantial elements that justify eviction. Therefore, we can well predict that the code would still be legal formalities difficult to apply in practical lawsuits.

No matter how, we still hope that the government could take the review really seriously and respect what the experts recommend. Today, we will outline our suggestions regarding the right to housing. There are six in total. Two of them relate to the legislative and judicial power respectively, and four of them are concerned with different types of housing rights infringement.

The first suggestion is concerned with general legislative duties. WE URGE the experts to observe that the principles of proportionality, transparency, consultation and participation are yet to be established in many governmental processes affecting housing rights, especially those regarding land expropriation, urban land consolidation, urban renewal, informal settlements clearance and the homeless. We suggest the experts to urge the government to: (1) Enforce detailed assessment of the public interest and necessity of developmental projects; (2) Actively release relevant data and information of tentative projects; (3) Establish due legal process to ensure that stakeholders are involved in the decision-making processes as early as possible and that ensuing controversies can be legitimately assessed by an independent third party; (4) Design the operative mechanism with the full participation of the civil society.

The second suggestion is concerned with the implementation of the covenants in judicial practices. WE URGE the experts to commend that some judicial officers have invoked the covenants in their decision-making, as the two groundbreaking verdicts made in 2016 confirming the claim to housing rights against the claim to property. However, the experts should also observe that several official interpretations have impeded such progress, for example, the Judges Meeting in August 2014 (as we mentioned in page 3, point 10 of the Shadow Report on the Government’s Response to the COR), which limits the justiciability of the covenants. We suggest the experts recommend the judiciary to ensure that judicial relief is available for the already or potentially evicted, especially the informal settlements and the tenants whose legal security of tenure is absent. The Judicial Yuan should take effective measures to catalyze the process, such as database establishment or training projects for the judges.

The third and fourth suggestions are concerned with the three major ways of land development in Taiwan: land expropriation, urban land consolidation, and urban renewal. WE URGE the experts to recommend the government to substantially reassess related regulations of “urban land consolidation” and land expropriation. The two institutions have similar structures and are currently deficient in regards to the principles of proportionality, due legal process, just compensations, and adequate relocation of the evicted, as in the case of the Underground Railway Project in Tainan ,Kaohsiung Fruit and Vegetable Market, and Wenzizhen Project. Specifically, the government should enhance the evaluations on the projects’ public interests and necessity, and should abolish zone expropriation and “private” urban land consolidation which so often induce unnecessary forced evictions in the purpose of profit-making, as in the case of Taoyuan Aerotropolis, Shezidao, Maiziyuan, Puyu, National Highway No. 1., the A7 station, and Danhai New Town.

As for the urban renewal, WE URGE the experts to recommend the government to abolish the Urban Renewal Act and to stipulate relevant laws in line with the Covenants, for the current Act is deficient in regards to the principles of proportionality, due legal process, just compensations, and adequate relocation of the evicted, as in the case of Sanchong Datong South Lot. We also suggest that the government should suspend all forceful demolitions except in cases where there is immediate public danger.

The fifth suggestion is concerned with the informal settlements in Taiwan. WE URGE the experts to note that the stigmatization and threat of eviction faced by thousands of families living in informal settlements are violations of the Covenants, as in the case of the Guishan Dahu, Huaguang, Daguan, Dagouding, Shaoxing, Wolong Street, Toad Mountain communities, and the Guimei, the Liu’s, and the Xindian Liugongjun families. The families are sued according to the Civil Code without genuine consultation and relocation plans in line with the Covenants. We suggest the experts to strongly recommend the central and local governments to reassess related regulations and introduce a moratorium on land clearance projects before effective measures are taken to ensure the legal security of tenure of the informal settlements.

The final suggestion is concerned with the situation of the homeless. WE URGE the experts to recommend the government to transcend the welfare localism that is based on the household registration system and establish a national homeless integration project including its timetables, raise finances, and conduct performance evaluations. Specific measures should be taken to guarantee the homeless with (1) adequate accommodation; (2) protection of their safety and dignity; (3) life-rebuilding measures such as employment support, medical care, and social welfare.

Besides these cases induced by specific institutional frameworks, the housing rights of other vulnerable groups should be guaranteed as well, such as the leprosy patients of the Losheng Sanatorium and several urban indigenous tribes such as the Sanyin, Sijhou, and Happy Mountain Tribe in New Taipei City.

These above suggestions are our deepest hope. Frankly, people die because of eviction in almost every single case, yet the government has kept evading all their responsibilities. For this, we have to deliver our harshest condemnation to the government, and the sincerest appeal to you experts.

  • 共同聲明團體 List of Signatories:
    三峽龍埔里劉家自救會 (The Liu’s Family in Sanxia Self-help Association)
    大觀事件自救會 (Daguan Homeless)
    世新大學社會發展研究所遊民工作坊 (Homeless Workshop of Graduate Institute for Social Transformation Studies)
    台北大學翻牆社 (NTPU CROSS)
    台灣人權促進會 (Taiwan Association for Human Rights)
    台灣反迫遷連線 (Taiwan Alliance of Anti-Forced Eviction)
    台灣農村陣線 (Taiwan Rural Front)
    好蟾蜍工作室 (Good Toad Studio)
    社子島自救會 (Shezidao Residents’ Self-help Association)
    社會住宅推動聯盟 (Social Housing Advocacy Consortium)
    南鐵居住正義青年小組 (Southern Railway Youth)
    桃園航空城反迫遷聯盟 (Taoyuan Aerotropolis Anti-Eviction Alliance)
    桃園國一甲反興建聯盟 (Alliance of Anti-National Highway No. 1 Construction)
    淡海二期反徵收自救聯盟 (Tamhai Phase II Alliance of Self-Help Groups for Anti-Expropriation)
    紹興學程 (Shaoxing Community Concern Group)
    華光社區訪調小組 (Huaguang Community Concerned Group)
    塭仔圳反迫遷連線 (Wen Zi Zhen Anti-Eviction Alliance)
    當代漂泊協會 (Working Poor Unite)
    經濟民主連合 (Economic Democracy Union)
    旗山大溝頂太平商場自救會 (Dagouding Old Street Self-help Association)
    樂生保留自救會暨樂生青年聯盟 (Losheng Self-Help Association and Youth Alliance for Losheng)
    機場捷運A7站自救會 (The Airport Metro A7 stop Self-help Association)
    龜山反大湖重劃自救會 (Guishan Self-help Association against Dahu Land Consolidation)
    環境法律人協會 (Environmental Jurists Association)

One Comment on “兩公約第二次國際審查-反迫遷共同聲明

[…] 兩公約第二次國際審查-反迫遷共同聲明 […]

Comments are closed.