Taoyuan Aerotropolis Land Expropriation Lawsuit Finalized, Residents Allege Village Destruction and File for Constitutional Interpretation
Residents whose land was expropriated for the Taoyuan Aerotropolis Airport Park zone, including Chen Jian-he, whose lawsuit was finalized in defeat, filed for constitutional interpretation today, accompanied by their legal team, alleging that the Land Expropriation Act is unconstitutional. Chen Jian-he stated that his village was not originally within the expropriation scope, but forced expropriation led to its near destruction.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: May 6, 2026 at 13:07
- 🔍 Collected: May 6, 2026 at 13:31 (24 min after Published)
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: May 6, 2026 at 13:37 (5 min after Collected)
Central News Agency (CNA) correspondent Liu Shih-yi (劉世怡) reported from Taipei on the 6th that in the Taoyuan Aerotropolis Airport Park Zone land expropriation case, expropriated resident Chen Jian-he (陳健和), whose lawsuit was finalized in defeat, today filed for a constitutional interpretation, accompanied by his legal team, accusing the Land Expropriation Act of being unconstitutional. Chen Jian-he stated that his village was originally not within the scope of expropriation, but forced expropriation led to its near destruction.
The case originated when the Taoyuan City Government and the Civil Aeronautics Administration of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, as the land users, planned and approved the first phase of the Taoyuan Aerotropolis Airport Park and surrounding areas land expropriation development project. The Ministry of the Interior approved the land expropriation in June 2020. Chen Jian-he and 9 other expropriated households were dissatisfied with the Ministry of the Interior's approval, arguing that the land expropriation amounted to 'private interest expropriation' and was an unconstitutional system. They filed a lawsuit requesting the revocation of the original administrative disposition (regarding the expropriation of all their land) and requested the administrative court to suspend the trial and apply for a constitutional interpretation.
Regarding Chen Jian-he's portion, the Taipei High Administrative Court considered that the land was indeed required for the airport exclusive zone and served a public purpose for transportation infrastructure, providing a high degree of public welfare for international air transport services. Therefore, the expropriation was deemed to have an important public interest objective. Public hearings and other announcement and notification procedures were carried out, and opinions from land rights holders were heard, fulfilling due legal process for substantive communication and negotiation. Thus, the court ruled against Chen Jian-he. The Supreme Administrative Court rejected the appeal at the end of last year, finalizing the judgment.
For the other 9 expropriated households, the Taipei High Administrative Court ruled in their favor, revoking the original administrative disposition, on the grounds that the Ministry of the Interior's review committee did not substantially review the necessity of expropriation. The Ministry of the Interior has since returned the expropriated land.
Chen Jian-he and his legal team held a press conference in front of the Judicial Yuan today. Chen Jian-he said he lives in Zhuwei, and his village was originally not within the scope of the Aerotropolis project, so it would not have been subject to land expropriation. He stated that the government's forced expropriation led to the village's near destruction, and that the government should communicate properly with the expropriated households. He hopes to protect his property and land through the constitutional interpretation application.
The press conference news material mentioned that the land expropriation system involves serious constitutional doubts. Therefore, a constitutional review of judgments and legal norms is requested. The judgment part concerns Chen Jian-he's individual case, while the legal norm part targets Article 4, Paragraph 1, Article 4, Paragraph 2, and Article 5, Paragraph 2 of the Land Expropriation Act, arguing that this land expropriation involves a comprehensive deprivation of constitutional property rights and freedom of residence, and simultaneously conflicts with the right to work and the right to equality.
Lawyer Hsiung Yi-ling (熊依翎) explained that the land expropriation system stipulated in Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Land Expropriation Act has constitutional doubts. Furthermore, the 'preliminary expropriation system by land consolidation' stipulated in Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the Land Expropriation Act, and Articles 2, 4, 6 to 8, and 11 of the Regulations for the Implementation of Land Expropriation by Land Consolidation, even more seriously undermine the principle of 'planning guiding development and construction' stated in Article 52 of the Urban Planning Act. This turns the development means into the end, leading to 'urban planning' serving as a tool for 'land expropriation by land consolidation.'
Hsiung Yi-ling stated that the design of the preliminary expropriation system, as seen from related legislative reasons, was merely to reduce public resistance and allow land users to smoothly promote land expropriation. The result not only causes an undue expansion of the expropriation scope but may also enable the state to intervene in land development with public authority, forming land speculation for financial gain.
Hsiung Yi-ling emphasized that the 'preliminary expropriation system by land consolidation' does not meet the extremely important public interest objective required for expropriation, and it violates the principle of 'planning guiding development and construction' and the requirements of constitutional due process. It has seriously infringed upon the property rights and freedom of residence protected by the constitution and should be deemed unconstitutional. (Editor: Lung Po-an) 1150506
Choose to stand with facts; your every sponsorship is a force to protect news freedom.
Download the Central News Agency 'First-hand News' APP to stay updated with the latest news.
The text, images, and videos on this website may not be reproduced, broadcast, transmitted, or used without authorization.
The case originated when the Taoyuan City Government and the Civil Aeronautics Administration of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, as the land users, planned and approved the first phase of the Taoyuan Aerotropolis Airport Park and surrounding areas land expropriation development project. The Ministry of the Interior approved the land expropriation in June 2020. Chen Jian-he and 9 other expropriated households were dissatisfied with the Ministry of the Interior's approval, arguing that the land expropriation amounted to 'private interest expropriation' and was an unconstitutional system. They filed a lawsuit requesting the revocation of the original administrative disposition (regarding the expropriation of all their land) and requested the administrative court to suspend the trial and apply for a constitutional interpretation.
Regarding Chen Jian-he's portion, the Taipei High Administrative Court considered that the land was indeed required for the airport exclusive zone and served a public purpose for transportation infrastructure, providing a high degree of public welfare for international air transport services. Therefore, the expropriation was deemed to have an important public interest objective. Public hearings and other announcement and notification procedures were carried out, and opinions from land rights holders were heard, fulfilling due legal process for substantive communication and negotiation. Thus, the court ruled against Chen Jian-he. The Supreme Administrative Court rejected the appeal at the end of last year, finalizing the judgment.
For the other 9 expropriated households, the Taipei High Administrative Court ruled in their favor, revoking the original administrative disposition, on the grounds that the Ministry of the Interior's review committee did not substantially review the necessity of expropriation. The Ministry of the Interior has since returned the expropriated land.
Chen Jian-he and his legal team held a press conference in front of the Judicial Yuan today. Chen Jian-he said he lives in Zhuwei, and his village was originally not within the scope of the Aerotropolis project, so it would not have been subject to land expropriation. He stated that the government's forced expropriation led to the village's near destruction, and that the government should communicate properly with the expropriated households. He hopes to protect his property and land through the constitutional interpretation application.
The press conference news material mentioned that the land expropriation system involves serious constitutional doubts. Therefore, a constitutional review of judgments and legal norms is requested. The judgment part concerns Chen Jian-he's individual case, while the legal norm part targets Article 4, Paragraph 1, Article 4, Paragraph 2, and Article 5, Paragraph 2 of the Land Expropriation Act, arguing that this land expropriation involves a comprehensive deprivation of constitutional property rights and freedom of residence, and simultaneously conflicts with the right to work and the right to equality.
Lawyer Hsiung Yi-ling (熊依翎) explained that the land expropriation system stipulated in Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Land Expropriation Act has constitutional doubts. Furthermore, the 'preliminary expropriation system by land consolidation' stipulated in Article 4, Paragraph 2 of the Land Expropriation Act, and Articles 2, 4, 6 to 8, and 11 of the Regulations for the Implementation of Land Expropriation by Land Consolidation, even more seriously undermine the principle of 'planning guiding development and construction' stated in Article 52 of the Urban Planning Act. This turns the development means into the end, leading to 'urban planning' serving as a tool for 'land expropriation by land consolidation.'
Hsiung Yi-ling stated that the design of the preliminary expropriation system, as seen from related legislative reasons, was merely to reduce public resistance and allow land users to smoothly promote land expropriation. The result not only causes an undue expansion of the expropriation scope but may also enable the state to intervene in land development with public authority, forming land speculation for financial gain.
Hsiung Yi-ling emphasized that the 'preliminary expropriation system by land consolidation' does not meet the extremely important public interest objective required for expropriation, and it violates the principle of 'planning guiding development and construction' and the requirements of constitutional due process. It has seriously infringed upon the property rights and freedom of residence protected by the constitution and should be deemed unconstitutional. (Editor: Lung Po-an) 1150506
Choose to stand with facts; your every sponsorship is a force to protect news freedom.
Download the Central News Agency 'First-hand News' APP to stay updated with the latest news.
The text, images, and videos on this website may not be reproduced, broadcast, transmitted, or used without authorization.