The Knowing Violation in the Dapu Expropriation Case

In the highly anticipated Dapu "disputed" expropriation case, the Taichung High Administrative Court ruled partially in favor of the plaintiff demolition households in the remand trial. Aside from determining that Miaoli's negotiated purchase procedure violated due process, the court also pointed out flaws such as the incompatibility between land demand and purpose, the failure to review whether public interest was served, and the failure to prove compliance with the principle of proportionality. Public opinion praised this as a victory for the people, and the plaintiffs' attorney pointed out that this case sets a benchmark for human rights, land, and justice.

Actually, the victory in this case was expected long ago. Why is this a remand trial? Because the case had previously been appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. Anyone who has read the Supreme Administrative Court's grounds for annulment and remand would easily anticipate high hopes for a victory by the plaintiff demolition households; the Taichung High Administrative Court was merely adjudicating and ruling in accordance with the Supreme Administrative Court's remand instructions. As early as July of last year, when Vice President Wu Den-yih and the Executive Yuan went back on their word and proposed the so-called four exceptions under which demolition would still proceed, the author wrote to your newspaper ("Straight Talk: Dapu's Four Hypocritical Principles, Must Officials Protect Each Other?") to remind the public that, pursuant to the Supreme Administrative Court's Judgment No. 953 (2012) annulling and remanding the case, the Miaoli County Government had failed to specifically state what the public interest and necessity of the zone expropriation were, and further questioned whether the Ministry of the Interior's Land Expropriation Review Committee had reviewed and determined issues such as "whether the scope of expropriation was necessary for the specific district project of the land user." This directly pointed out that the Miaoli County Government and the Ministry of the Interior were not "administering the law in accordance with the law." The Miaoli County Government was also ordered by the court to participate in the litigation independently as a defendant.

Regrettably, a few days later, endorsed by Vice President Wu and Premier Jiang of the Executive Yuan, the defendant Magistrate Liu Cheng-hung, knowing full well that this case might result in defeat, insisted on "executing the law." He seized the "god-given opportunity" of the demolition households protesting in northern Taiwan to strike first and demolish the house of his litigation adversary, attempting to create an irreversible fait accompli. This ultimately cost lives and drew a barrage of flying shoes. If such a demolition isn't "affected hypocrisy," what is? If the execution of an action known to be potentially illegal cannot establish state compensation, what can?

The Supreme Administrative Court's remand judgment was rendered around November 2012, meaning the people's victory in this case was arguably predetermined at that time. Yet the Vice President, the Premier, and Magistrate Liu all chose to turn a blind eye to the grounds of the judicial judgment, and instead used the illusion of "administering the law in accordance with the law" to hoodwink the public, stubbornly insisting that the demolition was lawful. If the judicial administration system of the administrative courts, or even the Judicial Yuan, had stepped forward to explain to the public the grounds upon which the Supreme Administrative Court questioned the legality of this development and annulled the remand, and reminded society that while the litigation was still ongoing, the Miaoli County Government was no longer a mere implementing agency but a defendant party, it would be hard to imagine the executive branch still daring to disregard the court judgment in this manner and brazenly and forcibly demolish the homes of the people who were their adversaries in litigation?

Magistrate Liu Cheng-hung himself did not hesitate to admit that the Dapu development project was a means intended to alleviate Miaoli County's heavy debts and increase its financial revenue. But is this what is called public interest? The German Federal Constitutional Court pointed out as early as a 1974 judgment that expropriation cannot serve as a tool to increase state property, and expropriation based on fiscal purposes is impermissible, even if such expropriation would alleviate the state's financial burden in other areas.

19th-century American writer Henry David Thoreau said in his masterpiece *Walden*: "Falsehood and fraud are esteemed as the truest truths, while reality is considered a lie. If men would steadily observe realities only, and not allow themselves to be deluded, life, to compare it with such things as we know, would be like a fairy tale and the *Arabian Nights*.