New Thinking of Macau Pre-Trial System in Criminal Proceedings Abstract Recent comments from various scholars about the excess of power of Macau pre-trial magistrate in criminal division suggest that often times the magistrate has crossed the role of the prosecutor, thus undermining the power under of the prosecutor and violating court independence and division of power under the Basic Law of Macau. These power includes the power to investigate in criminal investigation, the power to give order and make grant, the power te take lead of the investigation, as well as the power to implement preventive measures. These scholars further propose to abolish some of the magistrate's power in criminal investigation and evidence collection and to confer only the power to supervise, while the extreme of them suggests the entire system shall be abolished. In response to the above, this paper takes into account the development and evolution of pre-trial systems in other part of the World and gives an in-depth study of whether we should reform the system or keep the system at all based on the situation and needs of Macau, For this reason, this paper analyzes various scholars' reports, and provides an objective opinion of the above based on personal experiences as a pre-trial magistrate. This paper will first give an introduction about the history of the pre-trial system, before going into discussion about the system in Macau. We will examine its origin, then will focus on issues such as the investigation power, balance and distribution of powers, the necessity of pre-trial court, opinions among scholars, current judicial practice and the value of its existence, before closing with a conclusion about its benefit to the criminals, victims and public, in relations to the decision of the prosecutor or the pre-trial magistrate.

澳門刑事訴訟程序中預審制度存廢之新思維 中文摘要 關於近年有若干學者撰文提到澳門預審法官權力範圍過寬之言論，認為法官在刑事偵查中採取偵查措施方面的權力，及預審程序中所享有的包括命令、許可：調查犯罪行為的領導權及決定，以至實施強制措施決定是採取偵查措施方面的權力，屬出現預審法官履行檢察官職能的情況·此舉將有損檢察院的偵查領導及指揮權，亦有違《澳門特別行政區基本法》所訂定之法院獨立行使審判權，以及檢察院獨立行使檢察職能的分工準則·同時亦違背了審檢分立原則，繼而倡議應取消預審法官在偵查行為，調查行為的部分權力，逐步弱化甚至是取消預憲法官在偵察階段，預審階段的調查取證權，建議僅赋予其監督權，亦有學者建議更甚者亦有應廢除整個制度。 就上述意見及立場，本文结合了一些同是沿用預審制度之國家亦已因應自身國情需要而就該制度作出變革之情況，具體針對本澳的實況及需要作出探究，看看應否參照別國的情況對現存之預審制度進行改革，又或應否再繼續保留之，爲此，本文已重點針對其他學者已作出之研究結果，並以更全面的角度，特别是引介了本人在刑事起訴法庭工作以來所獲得之體驗，以客觀的態度對預審制度應否繼續存在作出了一仔细剖析及研究。 在撰寫結構方面，本文首先從歷史層面簡述預審制度之起源，繼而會談到本澳現行預審法律制度之有關规定，就這方而選擇了先從澳門刑事預審制度的沿革著手，繼而重點探討了預審程序法官的調查權，以及由此衍生之監督與平衡權限之分配轉變等，此外，尚就澳鬥基本法仍保留設置刑事起訴法庭之因由予以分析，接著，就會重點指出了不同學者近年對預審制度存廢之意見，尤其指出了彼等之論揮為何，接下來便會來到論文的重點，就是要針對其他學者的眾多論據進行詳細的分析，尤其是要結合預審制度近年在本澳司法實踐的具體情況，透徹探視該制度之存在價值，而最終的結論是，在本澳之刑事訴訟程序中，對訴訟主體來說，不管是嫌犯或是輔助人，對於檢察院在完成偵查後所作出的控訴或歸檔決定，很多是也會存有異議，作為升斗小民，往往對法律程序的操作並不認識，假若將現時的預審制度限縮其內涵甚至是將之取消，最大的受害者將是市民大眾，有關的操作只是為有關利害關係訴訟主體提供多一重保障，即使預審得直，有關的結果亦非最終決定，其原則上仍受上訴機制的約束，言即仍須受更高一個層級的司法監督。