九二一地震後，我國先後出現9月25日的「總統緊急命令」、10 月22日行政院的「緊急命令執行要點」及2000年1月17日立法院通 過的「震災重建暫行條例」三個法令，由上述三個法規的矛盾與重疊， 暴露出我國憲法對總統緊急權力規範的不完備。本文檢討我國憲法緊 急體制的過時性及此次總統緊急命令內容有許多違反法治國家原則之 處，以及行政院的執行要點應否由立法院審查的問題，最後分析較進 步的德國與日本緊急應變的立法模式。德國將各種緊急狀態予以「類型 化」，而在憲法中分別規定應變的方式與授權，堪稱極為進步的立法。 而日本則採取由國會迅速立法與授權的方式，以日本1995年阪神地震 後為例，日本國會迄今公布了四十個以上的震災法律，對比之下顯示 我國立法的怠惰。本文認為此次九二一地震後總統實施的緊急權，顯 示出含有使總統權力濫用的可能性，應採行德國式的憲法緊急權體制 為佳。

The present article addresses the legislation surrounding Taiwan's presidential emergency decree. Taiwan's constitution and its amendments authorize the president with emergency powers, such as during times of national crisis, including war and natural disasters, without precisely delineating the definition of such powers. The only method by which presidential emergency powers may be checked is through legislative approval by parliament. Thus, it is oftentimes criticized as political rather than legal control. Following the 921 earthquake, the Taiwanese government introduced three legal measures to address the natural disaster, including: 1) the presidential decree on September 5, 1999; 2) an execution order to the emergency decree on October 22, 1999, by the Judicial Yuan; and 3) the temporary reconstruction law on January 17, 2000, by the Legislative Yuan. Unsurprisingly, a substantial. amount of conflict, overlap, as well as uncertainty exists among. the three regulations, revealing the need for Taiwan to implement a uniform law regulating emergency power. Two models can be considered in this endeavor, namely, the German model and the Japanese model. The German model establishes a classification of different national emergencies, i.e., war as well as economic and natural disasters. For example, the constitution itself authorizes different organizational bodies as well as stipulates various measures to address such emergencies. In comparison, the Japanese and British models are based on Parliament's ability to quickly authorize the government with emergency measures as well as generally supervise various agencies in times of national crisis. For instance, within three years of the famous Osaka and Kobe earthquake in 1995, the Japanese parliament drafted and amended 40 different laws in relation to the natural disaster. This article regards the first model as more appropriate for Taiwan's current sociopolitical environment. The author considers the present emergency procedural system as a threat to Taiwan's nascent democracy given that said powers can easily be mishandled and even abused.