Paragraph 2, Article 19 of the Ba sic Law of the Macao SAR contains a very rich content, the contents, however, had not been fully explained previously. Therefore, this thesis aims to fully explain the Paragraph 2, Article 19 and the knowledge about the judicial application of the Paragraph 2, Article 19. This thesis would be divided into three parts, including introduction, main text and conclusion. And the main text consists of five chapters. In the first chapter, I found a tota l of 27 previous legal systems in Paragraph 2, Article 19 of the Basic Law of the Macao SAR. In the second chapter, this thesis revealed six reasons of the existence of the Restrictions on the jurisdiction imposed by the legal system, including the “territory” of the rule of policy shall not be violated by the rule of law; the restri ction must maintain the separation of powers; the ADR’s advantages in overcoming three limitations of law; the self-stipulation of jurisdiction; humanism and the limited judicial resources. On this basis, the author also summed up previous legal principles, in the Paragraph 2, Article 19, in a total of 12 principles. In the third chapter, according to the logic of the Basic Law of the Macao SAR, the author found that 26 “previous restrictions” were retained and incorporated into the cont ents of the Basic Law. At the same time, in this chapter, the author also proposed some personal views, such as members, of the Executive Council, can’t inherit the judicial immunity members, of the Advisory Council, enjoyed in the colonial era. In the fourth chapter, according to the basic theory of law, the author found the changes of some previous restrictions, maybe occurring with IV time change, must not violate the following principle: the changes must not make the statuses worse than the st atus quos to established aims in the Paragraph 2, Article 19, at l east preserve the status quos. In the fifth chapter, this thesis studied the judicial application of the Paragraph 2, Article 19, from the aspect of legal practice, with the focus on answering three questions. Firstly, the author demonstrated that the judge has the jurisdiction to rule on whether an act is a politic al act, but such an adjudication must belong to resolving legal issues in nature. Secondly, the author summarized a legal standard concerning ruling on whether an act is a political act. Finally, the author pointed out that for a political act in the case, when it causes controversy in the sense of “right or wrong”, it is seen as a political act, but when it causes controversy in the sense of “exist or not ” and “ what is it”, it is seen as the fact concerning political act.

《澳門基本法》19 條第 2 款包含著非常豐富的內容，但此前，學者們一 直都沒有很詳盡地對之進行過挖掘。鑒於此，筆者就想通過撰寫此文來全面 地挖掘一下這 19 條第 2 款本身的 內 容 及 其 被 適 用 到 司 法 審 判 中 的 學 問。本 文 總共分為導言、正文、結語三個部分，其中正文又分五章予以論述。 在 正 文 的 第 一 章，就《 澳 門 基 本 法 》19 條第 2 款中“澳門原有法律制度” 所涵蓋的具體內容，筆者一共尋到了 27 項原有法律制度。 在第二章，筆者通過對原有法律制度的深入研究，揭示出了造成法院審 判權受到限制的六大原因，即法治不得侵犯政治的“領地”、權力制約必須 維持分權、替代性糾紛解決機制在克服法律三大局限性方面的優勢、審判權 的自身規定性、人文主義以及司法資源的有限性，並在此基礎上總結出了 12 項限制法院審判權的原有法律原則。 在 第 三 章，根 據《 澳 門 基 本 法 》的邏輯，筆者發現在澳門回歸祖國以來， 前述原有法律制度中有 25 項“原有限制”被保留了下來並被納入了基本法 本身的內容之中。同時，就行政會委員能否承襲澳葡時代諮詢會委員的司法 豁免權之問題，筆者提出了否定的看法。 在第四章，根據法學基礎理論，筆者發現該 19 條第 2 款自身的邏輯決定 了日後假使某些原有限制要隨著時代的變遷而發生變更，那麼這種變更必須 恪守如下原則，即變更絕對不可使設置原有限制的目的實現得更差，至少要 保持住以往的實現效果。 在最後的第五章，本文從司法實踐的角度，研究了《基本法》19 條第 2 款在司法審判中的適用問題，並重點回答了其中的三個具體問題，即第一、 論證了法官可以通過適用 19 條第 2 款來 判 定 一 行 為 是 否 屬 於 政 治 行 為，但 這 種判定在性質上必須是屬於解決法律問題；第二、嘗試著給出了一套關於判 定一行為是否屬於政治行為的法律標準；以及第三、指出了對於某一涉案的 政治行為來說，當它在“對不對”的意義上引發爭議時，它就被看作為政治 行為，但當它在“有沒有”、“是什麼”的意義上引發爭議時，它將被看作 為涉及政治行為的事實。 關鍵字：審判權，原有法律制度，原有法律原則