Macao has experienced different political and legal systems before and after its Handover to China. The “Organic Statute of Macao"' was the constitutional law during the Portuguese Administration, in which the Governor, who headed the Region, was entitled much of the power, After the Region's Handover to China, the “Basic Law of the Macao Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China “ became the supreme power law, The Macao government is headed by the Chief Executive, whose power is no less extensive than the Governor. The largest difference in terms of legislative power between the two periods is that, the Governor and the Legislative Assembly shared such power: the Governor issued regulative documents were called decrees, and those made after deliberated and passed by the Assembly were laws. The Legislative Assembly is the only legislative body after the Handover. The manner of the Chief Executive expresses his power is solely the embodiment of the executive power. Pursuant to the Basic Law, the Chief Executive can make normative documents bearing binding force and legal nature called administrative regulations. Before Law No.13/2009 came into effect, Macao's Courts, Government and scholars have different views about the legal effectiveness of administrative regulations. After the Law came into effect, although the ranking issue of administrative regulations and laws had been made clear, and the object regulated by laws and administrative regulations had been sorted in a detailed manner, there is no effective solution when they come into conflict. Although a judge can refuse to apply an administrative regulation as the basis of judgment due to its violation of the Basic Law, it is solely effective on the case. An actor can, by raising a suit of dispute pursuant to the “ Code of Administrative Procedure Litigation "，to demand the Court to declare the illegality of an administrative regulation. But there is still limitation to raising such dispute, for example, it is not allowed to demand a court to declare an administrative regulation violating the regulations of the Basie Law null and void. In view of this, I believe there are still imperfections in the supervising mechanism over administrative regulations. Although there is executive dominance in Macao, there is by no means “executive dictatorship". The Legislative Assembly has certain power to monitor the Administrative Branch, but the procedures in which administrative regulations are made is not that strict. The issues an administrative regulation rules is more extensive than the law, and its content is closer to the society. The law does not rule that the Chief Executive must annul or amend the administrative regulations which have conflict with laws, and there is not such a supervising mechanism in Macao. For this reason, this article, based on the judgments of the Courts and different academic perspectives, and combining with different doctrines and theories, hopes to deduce a solution which conforms to the Basic Law, and does not harm the unique political system of executive dominance. Keywords: legislative power, executive dominance, administrative regulation

澳門在回歸前後分別經歷了不同的政法體制，在葡萄牙管治時期，《澳門組織章程》為澳門地區的憲制性法律，實施的是總督制，總督具有较大的權限。回歸後則以《澳門基本法》為澳門最高位階之法律，實施的是首長制，其限亦不如總督般廣泛。 針對立法權這一部份，回歸前後最大的分别，是回歸前澳門採用總督和立法會共享立法權的雙軌立法制之立法模式，總督訂定的規範性文件為法令，經立法會審議通過後制定的稱為法律；在回歸後立法會為澳門唯一的立法機關，行政長官行使其權力的表現方式亦僅為行政權的體現。 回歸後行政長官按基本法的规定，制定的具约束力和法律性質的規範性文件稱為行政法規。在第 13/2009 號法律《關於訂定内部規範的法律制度》生效前，澳門各級法院，澳門政府以及學者間對行政長官制定之行政法規是否具備法律效力各有不同的見解。在該法律生效後，雖然清晰了行政法規與法律之位階問题，以及細分了法律和行政法规所分別规範的對象；但在行政法規與法律發生衝突時，並没有一個有效的解决方法。 雖然法院在判案時，可以因某一行政法規違反基本法或上位法而拒絕適用該法規作為判案的依據，但這僅對該案產生約束力；又或行為人可以以《行政訴訟法典》中對规範提出爭議之訴的方式，要求法院宣告某一行政法规違法的制度，但這種爭議的提出亦有其限制，如不得就某一行政法规違反基本法的規定而要求法院宣告該行政法規無效。 有見及此，本人認為對行政法規的監督機制上仍有不完善的地方，雖然澳門是行政主導，但這並不是行政霸道。雖然立法會對行政機關亦有一定的監察權，但制定行政法規的程序時並不如法律般嚴謹。而且，行政法規所规範的事項亦較法律較為廣泛，内容亦較法律规範更為贴近社会。 而且，法律亦沒有规定行政長官必需要自行修改或廢止一些與法律生衝突的行政法規，澳門現時亦沒有這樣的一個監察機制。故此，本文将以各級法院的裁判書和不同的學術觀點為基礎，結合不同的學說理論，希望能推導出一個符合澳門基本法，又不會損害澳門以行政主導這一獨特的政治體制模式之解決方法。 關鍵字：立法權，行政主導，行政法規