Council of Grand Justices Denies Legislators’ Petitions for Judicial Review over Urban Renewal Statute

Council of Grand Justices Denies Legislators’ Petitions for Judicial Review over Urban Renewal Statute

Source: Taipei newspapers   June 25, 2012

The forcible demolition on March 28 of two houses owned by a family surnamed Wang in the Wenlinyuan (文林苑) urban redevelopment project in Shihlin District, Taipei City, ignited a dispute and heated debate about whether citizens should be allowed to have the right to decide whether or not to exclude their houses from an urban redevelopment project.

In April, the KMT, DPP legislators and the Wang family each separately petitioned the Council of Grand Justices for a judicial review over the constitutionality of the Urban Renewal Statute (都更條例). In a ruling on June 22, the Council of Grand Justices denied the two petition cases filed by the KMT and the DPP legislators in accordance with the Code of Procedure for Grand Justices (司法院大法官審理案件法), which stipulated that legislators were allowed to petition the Council of Grand Justices for judicial review only when points of doubt arose vis-à-vis the constitutionality over the exercise of their functions or authority.

The Council of Grand Justices declined to take up the political parties’ petition in the Wenlinyuan case because legislative action concerning the revision of the urban Renewal Statute had nothing to do with the legislators’ exercise of their functions or authority. However, the petition filed by the Wang family is still being reviewed by the Council of Grand Justices.  

In the June 22 ruling, the Council of Grand Justices stated, “The Legislative Yuan serves as the highest Legislative Organ of the country. Based on their functions and authority in maintaining the constitutional order and the principle of the rule of law, legislators shall enact and revise laws that are in accordance with the Constitution.  Any legislators who have doubts about the constitutionality of any provision in the laws after being promulgated for a period of time shall act to propose an amendment bill first. Only when the attempt fails will legislators be able to satisfy the requirements, in conformity with their exercise of functions and authority, in petitioning the Council of Grand Justices for a review of its constitutionality.   
 
On April 23, on the initiative of KMT legislator Lu Hsueh-chang (呂學樟) and with the endorsement of other 50 KMT legislators, a petition was filed with the Council of Grand Justices, arguing that the Urban Renewal Statute had violated the basic human rights protected under the Constitution as the Statute gave development companies the right to apply for and obtain development licenses and pre-sell housing units without the consent of all householders, and allow government agencies to demolish houses or relocate householders unwilling to participate in the urban redevelopment project on the behalf of development companies.       
 
In another petition case, which was initiated by DPP legislator Lin Shu-fen (林淑芬), the DPP argued that the Urban Renewal Statute had infringed upon people’s property rights, rights to live and reside and the freedom from being forcibly ejected from their own houses as protected under the Constitution and two international human rights covenants, i.e., the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). In addition, the DPP argued in the petition that the forcible demotion in the Wenlinyuan (文林苑) case had not been in accordance with the principle of proportionality prescribed in the Constitution and due process of law. 
 
 

Attachment : none