This article argues that the text in Taiwan's Constitution does not provide a clear guidance as to how much condemnation compensation should be paid. The Principle of Parity Between Compensation and Loss, set forth by Justices of the Constitutional Court in Interpretation No. 579, therefore, should be the compensation standard for land condemnation. My empirical study reveals that about 52% of the condemnation compensations (determined ex ante) between 2000 and 2009 were below the normal transaction price, posing the question whether the compensation practice fell short of the constitutional parity principle. This article argues that the current compensation regime violates the constitutional parity principle for two reasons. First, the dispersed distribution of condemnees' received compensations relative to their properties' normal transaction prices makes it difficult to justify all compensations as non-violative of the constitutional parity principle. Second, the Honorable Justice Pai-Hsiu Yeh's concurring opinion in J.Y. Interpretation No. 652 makes a case for fair market value as the bottom line for condemnation compensation, and most compensation paid has been below fair market value in the first decade in the twenty-first century. This article further argues that the legislature should as soon as possible revise the unconstitutional condemnation compensation regime, with efficiency in mind (efficiency also demands at least fair market value compensation). To be more specific, the Legislative Yuan should clarify its intention by amending Article 30 of the Land Condemnation Act and explicitly require that takings compensation be not less than ”normal transaction price” and that normal transaction price approximate fair market value. In the long run, when the Announced Current Land Value approximates fair market value, the Legislative Yuan should abolish the Announced Current Land Value regime altogether, and property taxes and takings compensation should be assessed according to fair market value.