|Abstract: ||自行政程序法自施行後，行政命令之分類見解岐異，然我國行政法學因大量且長期受德國等諸國之影響，苟既受德國法影響甚深，解釋上仍應依德國法之文義解釋及學說為主，此觀司法院大法官會議釋字第443號層級化法律保留即可自明，嗣後司法院大法官會議解釋對於不具法律形式而僅有實質法規為解釋之命令，其解釋數量繁多捬拾即是，但行政命令違法之情事仍層出不窮，縱行政命令之規定施行已久，卻少有對行政命令違法性研究討探之聲音，然法律亦有其極限，故修正及改進的空間確有必要。 揆諸於行政程序法對於行政命令僅有原則性規範，但並未對違法性內涵作出詳盡解釋，若以非違法之行政命令端視，解釋上該行政命令也未必合法，又行政法上之違法性雖不亞於刑法上之違法性，但違法性卻少有專書介紹，雖司法院大法官解釋文釋字367號之理由書載明，法律之授權涉及限制人民自由權利者，其授權之目的、範圍及內容符合具體明確之條件時，亦為憲法之所許；惟仍未說明違法性之內涵為何？亦尚乏明文規定，是以有待澄清。 是本文主要是將探討違法行政命令之相關問題，從解釋論之角度出發，並藉由國內現有學說、實務見解及判決之評析，針對各類型行政命令及外國制度規範與我國現行法行政命令制度，以比較法作優劣剖析，並針對違法性作深入論述，並為體系建構，使人民對行政命令之制度及規範能有更清楚之認識，希冀從爭議問題中提出妥適之解決方法，避免人民之權利在現行制度下被犠牲，另提出將來修法的參考。|
Since the Administrative Procedure law came into force, opinions have been divided when it comes to the classification of executive orders. Over the past years, Taiwan’s administrative laws have been influenced by many countries such as Germany, and with the influence of German laws, Taiwan’s administrative laws are interpreted based on the literary content and legal theories of German laws, as manifested by su-tzu No. 443 interpretation regarding the hierarchical legal reservations made by the Grand Justices Council, Judicial Yuan. Moreover, the Grand Justices Council construed executive orders as substantive regulations without legal format. Countless interpretations have been made so far, but illegal executive orders have been found ceaselessly. Notwithstanding the long history of executive orders, few researchers have studied the topics related to the illegality of executive orders. The law is unable to serve its purpose if something occurs outside its border. It is therefore necessary to correct the shortcomings. In this connection, there is plenty room for improvement. Administrative Procedure Law provides general norms for executive orders without interpreting the substance and subtext of the illegality. As we can see, even the non-illegal executive orders do not necessarily conform to the legal requirements. The illegality of executive orders is a serious issue, as serious as the illegality of criminal laws, but hardly any professional literature has discussed the illegality of executive orders. According to the statement of reasoning contained in su-tze No. 367 interpretation made by the Grand Justices Council of Judicial Yuan, in the event an authorization is required by law to restrict people’s freedom and right, such authorization shall be permitted by the constitution provided that the purpose, scope and content of such authorization are clear and definite. However, su-tze No. 367 interpretation did not provide the substance and subtext of illegality, either. Apparently, no statutory provision has been made regarding the substance and subtext of illegality. It is therefore necessary to clarify all issues stated above. For this reason, this study focused on the issues related to the illegality of executive orders, examined the relevant theories, practical opinions and judgments from the standpoint of explanatory theory, compared various executive orders with foreign countries’ executive orders and the executive orders described in Taiwan’s laws, and then discussed illegality intensively so as to construct a framework, allowing the general public to understand the executive orders. Most importantly, this paper attempted to find solutions to the disputes, help people not to be victimized by the system, and serves as reference when the laws are amended in the days to come.