The system of legislative review according to the Basic Law which has great impact on the power relation between the central and local authorities, the check and balance between executive, legislative and judicial powers within the SAR under the executive-dominated political structure is an important theoretical and practical issue for the implementation of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong and Macau Special Administrative Regions. This issue has lots of researches in Hong Kong because The Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong has used the power to review legislation according to the Basic Law to make judgments in a number of related cases. Compared with Hong Kong, there is a few researches on this subject of Macau. The system of Macau is similar with Hong Kong, but also has its own characteristics and deserves a sole and specific study. This paper chooses Macau courts’ power of legislative review according to the Basic Law as the research object, and uses the methods of literature analysis, historical review, comparative and normative analysis. It focuses on three basic questions: Whether Macau courts have the power of legislative review according to the Basic Law? Does this power of Macau courts have any expanded space? And how to exert and limit this power of Macau courts through keeping the coherent application of the Macau Basic Law. In order to explore above questions, this article is divided into five chapters. The first chapter explains the connotation and extension of ‘power of legislative review according to the Basic Law’ by comparing with words ‘power of constitutional review’, ‘power of judicial review’ and ‘power of interpretation of the Basic Law’. Then defines it as the power which authorizes courts to examine and determine the IV validity of the law, administrative rules and other normative legal documents within SARs according to the Basic Law. Chapters 2 and 3 intend to answer the first basic question above. In the second chapter, it demonstrates the reality and features of the exertion of this power of Macau courts though the relevant typical cases. In a short, although the Basic Law did not authorize Macau courts to use this power clearly, Macau courts itself have practically exercised this power though didn’t have general legal effect. The third chapter firstly organizes and comments three main ideas on this question, then based on the Basic Law, it refers that Macau courts enjoy this power in a low level, with the National People's Congress and its Standing Committee together, constitutes the system of legislative review according to the Basic Law of Macau in a double-track and hierarchic structure. In the fourth chapter, aiming to solve the second basic problem, this paper answers some questions raised at the end of Chapter 3. It argues that Macau courts have very limited room to expand this power which cannot review the decisions and acts made by the National People's Congress and its Standing Committee and carry out abstract legislative review according to the Basic Law. However, Macau courts can rely on the existent legal system of Macau to make relevant judgements have general legal effect. The last chapter regulates the exercise of this power of Macau courts by maintaining the coherent application of the Basic Law of the Macau SAR. To be specific, one way is keeping the same attitude towards this power of Macau courts at all levels. Another is the application of ‘the unified judicial opinion system’ of Macau. Contents of these chapters are closely related which illustrates this power of Macau courts from three aspects that is reality, ought to be and development. [Key words] the Basic Law of the Macau Special Administration Region, power of legislative review according to the Basic Law, constitutional review, judicial review

違基本法審查制度是港澳特區基本法實施的重要理論和實踐問題，關乎中央和特區的權力關係及特區內部在行政長官主導體制下三權間的分權與制衡衡。較之香港，澳門違基本法審查制度研究較少，雖然該制度在兩個特區有相似之處，但也有各自的特點，澳門違基本法審查制度值得單獨研究。本文選取了澳門法院違基本法審查權作為研究對象，運用文獻分析、歷史回顧、比較分析和規範研究的方法，重點闡述了三個基本問題，即：澳門法院是否享有違基本法審查權、澳門法院違基本法審查權是否有擴展的空間以及從保持《澳門基本法》適用一致性角度規範澳門法院違基本法審查權的行使。 本文分為伍章。第一章通過將“違基本法審查權”與“違憲審查權”、“司法審查權”和“基本法解釋權”進行對比分析，解釋違基本法審查權的內涵和外延，將研究對象限定為澳門法院根據《澳門基本法》對法律、行政規章或其他規範性法律文件是否符合基本法進行審查並確定其效力的權力。第二章及第三章意在回答第一個基本問題，即澳門法院是否享有違基本法審查權。第二章根據相關典型案例統計表歸納總結了澳門法院違基本法審查權在實踐中的行使情況及特徵，簡單而言，雖然基本法沒有明確授權，但在實踐中澳門各級法院實際行使了該權但沒有普遍效力。第三章則從理論入手，在評述三種主要觀點之後，基於基本法的規定對該問題進行了細緻分析，得出澳門法院享有低層次的違基本法審查權，與全國人大及其常委會的違基本法審查權一起構成了雙軌分層次的澳門違基本法審查制度的結論。第四章表面上回答了第三章末提出的幾個問題，實質試圖解決第二個基本問題，即澳門法院違基本法審查權是否有擴展空間。本文認為澳門法院違基本法審查權擴展空間有限，不能審查全國人大及其常委會作出的決定和行為，無權進行違基本法抽象審查，但可以澳門現有體制為依託，使相關判決實質上具有普遍效力。第五章從保持澳門法院適用基本法一致性角度給出規範澳門法院行使該權的兩個方法，即統一澳門各級法院行使違基本法審查權的態度和澳門本地“統一司法見解制度”的適用。這伍章的內容緊密相連，從實然、應然和發展三個方面說明了澳門法院違基本法審查權的現實情況、理論根據、擴權可能性和規範行使。 [關鍵字] 澳門基本法，違基本法審查權，違憲審查，司法審查