Determination of the small property right house violated the constitution

The small property right room policy road map
● 2007 JuneThe former Ministry of Construction issued risks presentation, reminded the purchase, in order to urban identity to rural areas to purchase rural housing, not in conformity with the provisions of the existing land management system.
● 2007 DecemberThe State Council executive meeting specific requirements of urban residents do not have to buy house sites in rural areas, farmers residential or small property room.
● 2008 JanuaryThe State Council issued "on the strict implementation of the rural collective construction land laws and policies of the notice" pointed out, any land management system of experiment and exploration, can not be in violation of national land use control system.
● July 15, 2008 land and issued a notice, to implement the requirements of the countryside homestead right certification work as soon as possible, but not as clearly pointed out that the small property room for any form of proof of ownership.
● September 1, 2009 land recently issued "on the strict construction land management to promote the use of land without the notice", reiterated to local government again, resolutely stop all kinds of small property room.

Recently, in the collective construction land is the so-called "small property room" has become a topic of public. Shenzhen city to give part of "small property room" rectification of names, caused a small property room heat, so housing construction ministry spokesman came out statement, said the small property right room is not the property of "illegal construction", not talk about what "small property", the state would not be able to give the opening release so. The building housing the Ministry statement of a legal and policy basis, not to say what is wrong, but the problem is, it highlights two between different ownership relations. Ownership by the whole people and collective ownership is the relationship between leading and being led, and subordinate, or parallel equal relationship? Ownership by the whole people have the right to set the right category of collective ownership? For the small property right room, is the Department of housing construction "unconstitutional" or collective economic organizations "illegal"? The essence and core of which is the problem.
One, the provisions of the constitution of two ownership is equal and the protection of the rights and interests of collective ownership. 　　
"People's Republic of China Constitution" the sixth stipulation: "the basis of the socialist economic system of the people's Republic of China is the socialist public ownership of the means of production, namely, ownership by the whole people and collective ownership by the working people". This made it very clear that, these two kinds of ownership form belong to "the basis of the socialist economic system", are different forms of public ownership economy, their relationship is not subordinate. The provisions of article seventeenth, "the collective economic organizations in compliance with the relevant laws, the autonomy" independent economic activities, "what is the autonomy" independent economic activities? Is the collective economic organizations can self decision of production and business activities, including business, for its own production data handling and trading rights. The eighth said, "the legitimate rights and interests of the state" to protect the urban and rural collective economic organizations, is the collective rights and interests are protected by the constitution. Provisions on land, the constitution, the land is divided into state ownership and collective ownership of two all the way, land may not be sold, but the land use rights can be transferred.
"People's Republic of China Constitution" provisions for collective ownership rights and interests is unmistakable. Between the ownership by the whole people and collective ownership, relationship does not exist constraints, leadership and subordinate to any of the. They are completely independent and equal, the Constitution gives the collective ownership complete ownership and the protection of the rights. The collective land and state-owned land may not be sold, but can transfer the right to use, transfer of collective land use right Constitution did not make any limit, also did not say this transfer must be who get approval. 　　
The provisions of two, real estate related laws and regulations, neglect and deprivation of collective ownership rights. 　　
The contradictions exposed in the "small property room" issue, is owned by the state power, restriction and deprivation of collective ownership rights. The same is the land ownership by the whole people and collective, to build a house in the popular all state-owned land, but is called "commercial housing" and enjoy the great benefit of the market, but in the collective land to build a house, not only can not be called "commercial housing" and belongs to the "illegal construction", even a little legal status and qualification No. Countries to ensure that the "one billion eight hundred million acres of the red line" and food supply, this is no problem, but they belong to the collective land, non cultivated land, village, road, mountain, beach, river? Collective have the right for commercial development? The need for this commercial development just of state-owned land resources departments for approval? The Ministry of land and resources department has the right to all of the land management of collective? Housing construction departments have the right on collective land buildings define legal and illegal? State owned land development by the Department shall issue a certificate of property rights, collective land development can not through the ownership or management department issued a certificate of title? The former property right certificate is legitimate, the latter property certificate is illegal? Ownership by the whole people can come forward to levy collective land and its changes to the "state-owned land", collective ownership may not to levy the ownership of land and its changes to the "collective land"? Ownership by the whole people can requisition of agricultural land to build the "development zone", the collective ownership may not expropriation of agricultural land to build "development zone"? The same land, the same internal and market value, state-owned land use rights can be market-oriented and collective ownership shall not be entitled to the commercialization and marketization? Only state-owned land and collective land worth not worth the money? The specific laws, policies, regulations for the deprivation of collective ownership, enable us to these laws, regulations, policies toward the opposite. 　　
Three, the unconstitutional act the land issue, the National People's Congress Standing Committee is necessary to solve the "interpretation". 　　
The constitution is the fundamental law of all national laws, policies, regulations, must follow the fundamental law. Where the spirit of the Constitution does not match or opposite laws, policies, regulations, shall be abolished, or make corresponding changes and changes. In the collective land use right on this issue, the Standing Committee of the National People's congresses as the state legislature is necessary to explain the relevant provisions of the constitution, in order to clarify the confusion on this issue, but also collective ownership to true colours. Housing construction ministry statement about the "small property room", the existence of legal compliance but unconstitutional ingredient? We related laws and regulations, including the "land law" and its supporting regulations, the existence and the constitution conflict even unconstitutional part? All these need to make clear the "interpretation". The use right of state-owned land can be commercialized but the collective land use rights shall not be commercialized, what is the constitutional basis for this rule? Blocked by the collective land use right commercialization, under the condition of market economy equivalent to ban the ownership itself. If say that the development of "small property room" of the collective economic organizations in violation of the law but our government is unconstitutional, it really is a satire on the Constitution and the law. 　　
Four, the protection of the interests of the rural areas and farmers, we should not only say on the mouth, and should be put into action. 　　
Since the 1978 reform and opening up, our party almost every year to send a "a file", emphasizing the development of protecting the interests of farmers and promote rural and agricultural. It, almost there shall be thirty "No.1 Document". But the "three rural issues" really solved? The answer is still far from resolved; rural collective economic interests and the rights and interests of farmers are effectively protected? The answer is improved but still not been fundamentally protect. The incomplete rural collective ownership rights reflects the incomplete rural interests. When we solve the "three rural issues" in the talk, should first of all from the provisions of the laws, policies, start. If our policies to protect the interests of farmers but the law has deprived of this interest, how we will party central policies? 　　
Agriculture is the foundation of national economy, the rural economy of collective system of ownership, is the basic guarantee of agricultural development of rich farmers. In this basic question, is not fake and vague.
To be frankly, when the rural collective construction land use rights (excluding agricultural land) was made and the equal legal status of the right to the use of state land, rich farmers and rural development is not the problem.

This part from others, remember the detailed address