在接受當代憲政主義、成為憲政主義國家之前，許多東亞國家都歷經了外來勢力干預、入侵，或是殖民。換言之，許多東亞國家的憲政主義其實是外來勢力介入所造成之法律繼受的結果。大體而言，儘管當代憲政主義如今已經被大多數國家接受且實踐，甚至被高舉為普世價值，但往往被忽略而隱藏在背後不為人知的是，繼受國家如何努力掙扎，克服在地既有之社經與政治脈絡因素，乃至能接受、調適、融入當代憲政主義。其中最令法律學者關切的議題之一，就是在憲法下作為憲政主義守護者的憲法法院，如何在鞏固憲政主義的同時，又能兼顧照料在地政治社會發展的需要。 在東亞，日本是最令法律學者感到好奇的案例。做為二次大戰中的戰敗國，在戰後經歷了長達七年的外國全面干預統治，日本在占領時期結束之後方始確立憲政主義。歷史證明，擁有一部外來憲法的日本，非但能夠成功凝聚其國家認同、重建社會，更在經濟發展上取得傲人的成績。有趣的是，相對於戰後日本在國家重建上如此積極的政治作為，日本最高法院卻一向被世人評價為保守憲法法院的典型。從而，值得探討的問題在於，究竟日本最高法院對於日本舉世聞名的國家重建成績有無任何貢獻？以及，它究竟扮演了什麼角色？ 為探討此問題，本文分析著名的經典案例：日本最高法院 1952年關於行政命令第 325號合憲性的判決。在本件判決中，日本最高法院首次審查占領時期在憲法上的地位，並質疑盟軍司令部最高統帥（Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, SCAP）的命令違反憲法。本文冀望藉由分析社會政治脈絡以考察並爬梳本案，探討日本最高法院在國家重建過程中所扮演的角色。本文結論認為，法院在本案中扮演了關鍵的角色。不同於一般對於日本最高法院係趨於保守的認知，本案中法院採取了策略性的作為，透過審查係爭命令的合憲性，法院著力於鞏固主權與國家認同、確立法治原則並重申人權保障，同時也進一步促成有活力的公民社會形成。

Most states in East Asia had undergone foreign interference, invasion, or colonization under the West Powers before they finally embraced modern constitutionalism. While nowadays modern constitutionalism seems to have enjoyed universal acceptance and worldwide practice, what relatively tends to be ignored is the struggle of the recipient states to embrace, adapt, and accommodate the modern constitutionalism they inherited to their local political and social-economic context. The very issue which especially attracts legal scholars’ attention is how the constitutional court, usually assigned the significant role as the guardian of constitution in modern constitutionalism, manages to safeguard constitutionalism while also attends to the needs of social-political transition. In East Asia, Japan was the case that always appeal to the curiosity of legal scholars. History proves the astounding miracle of Japan’s notable success in how it managed to seek national identity, reconstructed its society, and achieved economic prosperity after foreign occupation. Interestingly, however, as if serving as the comparison to the booming development of the post-war Japan, the Supreme Court of Japan has always been known as a typical of a conservative court with unequivocal deferent tendency to the Government. It makes one wonders if the Court could have had to do with the success of Japan’s national reconstruction, and ever played any significant role contributing to Japan’s remarkable experience. This Article analyzes the Supreme Court of Japan’s ruling upon the constitutionality of Cabinet Order No. 325 in 1952. It was a landmark case in the history of the Court, in which the status of the occupation was reviewed for the first time, with the Orders of the SACP called into question as contravene the Constitution. This Article attempts to, through a contextual analysis in light of its social-political background, revisit this case and explore the Court’s contribution by rendering this decision in response to the Nation’s need of national reconstruction. This Article concludes that the Court played a significant role in this adjudication. In contrast to the general assumption of the Court’s conservative tendency, the Court in this case was conscious and strategic to attend to the needs of national reconstruction, including consolidating sovereignty and national identity, upholding the rule of law and human rights protection, and empowering the burgeoning civil society.