近十年來，台灣之國會預算審議，常見擱置預算審議、全額或大幅刪除預算或全額或大幅凍結預算等重大爭議，引發探究國會預算審議權法律界限之必要性。現代國家之權力分立結構中，掌握依法行政之法律制定權之國會，面對行政部門依法編列之預算，是否有權擱置預算審議、全額或大幅刪除預算或全額或大幅凍結預算？本文根據行政部門依法行政原則之要求，分析行政部門編列法定預算，既然應依立法部門制定法律所規定之施政任務為之，立法部門審議預算案，亦應依據本身制定法律所規定之施政任務為之。因此，立法部門不得恣意擱置預算審議、全額或大幅刪除或凍結法定預算，否則將有違反自身制定法律之嫌。此外，現代國家之預算編列、審議與執行之目的，均在於支應法律規定之行政任務，而法律規定之行政任務，其目的均在於直接或間接實現憲法上之人權保障。因此，國會預算審議之法律目的，在於確保其法律規定之所有行政任務，均有充分之預算支應與遂行，以最終確保人權之直接或間接保障均能獲得實現。立法部門不得恣意擱置預算審議、全額或大幅刪除或凍結法定預算，否則將有違憲之虞。立法部門之預算審議，應遵守前述法律與憲法界限，不得恣意擱置預算審議、全額或大幅刪除或凍結法定預算。

In these ten years, there were some significant disputes on deliberating a budget bill in Taiwan, such as refusing to deliberate on a budget bill, cutting the budget or freezing the execution of the budget totally or drastically. These disputes raise a necessity to discuss the legal limits on deliberating a budget bill. In a construction of the separation of legislative, administrative and judicial authority, when the legislative department with an authority to enact the legislations for ruling the administration in the face of a budget bill drawn up by the administrative department according to those legislations, do the legislative department have the power to refuse to deliberate on the budget bill, cut the budget or freeze the execution of the budget totally or drastically？This thesis reviewed the legal character of the budget designated by law and drawn up by the administrative department according to those legislations from the legislative department, and declared that the legislative department shall deliberate on a budget bill according to its legislations. So that the legislative department cannot arbitrarily refuse to deliberate on a budget bill, cut the budget totally or drastically or freeze the execution of the budget totally or drastically, because those will have a fear of violating its legislations. In addition, all the purposes of the compilation of the budget, deliberation on a budget bill and execution of the budget aim at sufficient allotments to all administrative duties ruled by legislations, and the legal purposes of those administrative duties ruled by legislations aim at protecting the human rights directly or indirectly. Therefore, the final legal purpose of the deliberation on a budget bill shall aim unquestionably at protecting the human rights under the Constitution directly or indirectly. If the legislative department arbitrarily refused to deliberate on a budget bill, cut the budget totally or drastically or froze the execution of the budget totally or drastically, there will be a fear to violate the Constitution. When deliberates on a budget bill, the legislative department shall observe the legislative and constitutional limits above-mentioned and cannot arbitrarily refuse to deliberate on a budget bill, cut the legal budget or freeze the execution of the legal budget totally or drastically.