本文由行政法院關於行政程序中人民陳述意見權利範圍的詮釋為出發點，整理分析了我國學理及實務對此一議題之見解。發現司法實務見解傾向認為人民依法申請事件毋庸給予申請人陳述意見權利之必要，係立法者衡量此行政處分性質上之差異，取捨後所作之規定；而學理上對此則多持不同意見，一如我國所繼受之德國法上實務與學理之爭論般。而近年來歐盟法對德國法的影響，無論就歐洲法院的裁判見解，乃至於歐盟基本權利憲章第41條第2項對人民陳述意見權利之保障，皆係強調人民對不利措施作成前有陳述意見之權利，未刻意衡量不利措施在性質上之差異（積極地對人民的自由或既存的權利為限制或剝奪，抑或消極地駁回人民的請求），以彰顯行政程序基本權保障之意義。而回歸我國憲法保障行政程序基本權內涵建構基準的思考，應亦可得出與歐盟法之同一結論。故衡諸人民陳述意見權利作為行政程序基本權的重要性，本文認為只要是「人民依法申請事件」均應保障其陳述意見權利。將行政程序法第102條規定僅限「積極地對人民的自由或既存的權利為限制或剝奪」，而不及於「消極地駁回人民的請求」，實係是一種「劃地自限」的解釋，應不符合憲解釋的要求。

Article 102 of Administrative Procedure Act: ＂An administrative authority shall, before rendering an administrative disposition to impose restraint on the freedom or right of a person or to deprive him of the same, give the person subject to the disposition an opportunity to state his opinions , unless a notice has been given to the person subject to the disposition under article 39 hereof to enable him to state his opinions or it has been decided that a hearing will be held, except where it is otherwise prescribed by law.＂ This article by the national law, EU law (Charter of Fundamental Rights) and German law analysis of the scope of the right of statement of opinions.