總統為臺灣地區於民國八十八年九月二十一日遭遇前所未有強烈地震，造成嚴重災害，有關災害救助、災民安置及災後重建，刻不容緩，乃依憲法增修條文第二條第三項之規定，於同年九月二十五日發布緊急命令。由於該緊急命令係我國行憲以來之首次發布。關於總統之緊急命令權及立法院追認該命令之程序，均值探究。菱就緊急命令之內涵、緊急命令與緊急處分之區別、緊急命令之追認程序等面向加以探討，併就行政院嗣後發布之緊急命令執行要點予以評析。 國家可能遭遇不可預測之緊急狀態，為克服上述各種危難，實有必要賦予國家緊急權。此項緊急權之行使，類由國家元首為之，此更為第二次世界大戰後新憲法之共同趨勢。我國於制憲時，亦採上述制度。又緊急命令係一應變制度，其效力不僅超過法律，且可停止憲法若干條款;有關憲法所保障人民之自由權利，難免受到相當的拘束。是以緊急命令權之行使，理應從制度上予以限制，以防止其濫用。 依我國憲法及動員戡亂時期臨時條款之相關規定，兩者均先經行政院會議之決議後，由總統予以發布;惟其發布事由、時機及監督，則作不同之規定。又憲法與增修條文對於緊急命令之規定亦有不同。增修條文對總統發布緊急命令之限制規定，如權力行使範圍、程序要件及追認時限，均作較為寬鬆之規定。 依憲法增修條文及立法院職權行使法之相關規定，立法院追認總統所發布之緊急命令，大抵分為提報、審查及表決三程序。在處理之前，亦可進行黨團協商，以形成共識。此次緊急命令咨請立法院追認時，王院長於收到咨文後，即召開黨團協商會議，並依協商結論處理該案。該案得以迅速決議，並獲絕對多數同意(出席投票委員二○四人，有效票二○三票，同意追認者二○一票，不同意追認者二票)，實乃此次地震災情慘重亟待立即救助與重建;加諸黨團協商機制發揮功能所段。 緊急命令係一應變制度，為暫時性、臨時性之措施。總統此次發布之緊急命令，就救災與重建而言，業已發揮適時性功能。復就命令內容與發布程序而論，尚符合憲政學者所提緊急命令應具備條件之要求。惟此次緊急命令之發布，未採民國三十七年八月二十日頒布緊急處分令方式，併將執行相關法規同時發布，引發嗣後訂定緊急命令執行相關法規應否再度咨請立法院追認或審查之爭議；加諸行政院對於緊急命令相關作業規範，堅持以「執行要點」命名，並擬不送立法院備查(後改以「�b知」送請立法院)更造成行政部門與立法部門間出現劍拔弩張之勢。又目前缺乏涵括所有重大災害均可適用之完整法令，使得現行災害防救體系及緊急應變能力遭受空前考驗。有關上述爭議及災害防救法均應迅速予以規範，使我們民主憲政得以邁向更高境界。

　　　　　In view of the unprecedented earthquake of September 21, 1999 that caused Taiwan devastating damages, the President issued an emergency decree on September 25 pursuant to paragraph 3 of the 2nd Constitutional Amendment to deal with disaster relief,rehabilitation of people affected and reconstruction of the disaster area. Thisemergency decree was the first one after the coming into force of the ROC Constitution.The Presidential power of emergency decree and the procedure in the Legislative Yuanof confirmation should be studied. Attempts have been made to discuss the contents ofemergency decree, distinction between emergency decree and emergency measures, theprocedure of confirmation, and the Main Points ofimplemeolation for such decree issuedby the Executive Yuan. Any State may encounter unpredictable emergency, the power of a State to cope with such situation is necessary, so does our Constitution, and such power has usually been exercised by the head of State as has been the case of many new Constitution senacted after the 2 World War. Our Constitution followed such line of thinking. Besides, emergency decree is meant for emergency, it should override law, it could even suspend certain provisions of the Constitution. Certainly, there is a possibilitythat people's freedom and rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution could berestricted. Speaking from institutional perspectives, the exercise of emergency powershould be restricted in order to prevent its abuse. Both our Constitution and the Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of National Mobilization for the Suppression of Communist Rebellion make it clear thatemergency decree should be adopted by the Executive Yuan Meeting before Presidentialproclamation, but both are different over the reasons of proclamation, timing and theme chanism of supervision. The Constitutional amendment has different provisions. By and large, restrictions upon the President with regard to scope of power, proceduralrequirement and the time frame of confirmation are more lenient in the Constitutionalamendment. Pursuant to the Constitution and the Law on the Exercise of Power and Function bythe Legislative Yuan, confirmation of Presidential Emergency Decree by the Legislative Yuan could be divided into three steps: submission, consideration and voting. Beforediscussion, it is also feasible to conduct consultation among the party caucuses to form aconsensus. As for the case under discussion. President Wang convened a meeting ofconsultation among party caucuses immediately after having received Presidential letterof transmission. The disposal of this emergency decree was based upon the conclusionof such consultation. Eventually, the matter was voted upon very quickly and thisdecree won absolute majority owing to the urgency of assistance and reconstruction (204Members were present, out of 203 valid votes, 201 votes yes, 2 votes no). Part of thecredit should go to the effective consultation among party caucuses. Emergency decree is basically a temporary and provisional measure in response toa urgent situation. This decree was issued in good timing, its content and procedure ofpromulgation are also consistent with requirements commonly mentioned by scholars ofconstitutional law. However, there is a difference between this emergency decree and the emergency measures of August 20, 1948. Fifty one years ago, emergency measureswere promulgated at the same time as the relevant enforcement provisions, but this time,the Main Points of Enforcement of the Emergency Decree was submitted to theLegislative Yuan only under pressure, for the Executive Yuan did not want to submitenforcement provisions in the beginning, causing tension between the Executive Yuanand the Legislative Yuan. Finally, the enforcement provisions were sent to theLegislative Yuan to inform the latter. Another pertinent comment is that acomprehensive and relevant laws and regulations to cover all varieties of major disasteris still missing; therefore, disaster control, rehabilitation of disaster area and abilities tocope with emergency are going through severe test. It is suggested that the pertinentlaws should be enacted as soon as possible and that the legal dispute be put under legalframework. This will help our constitutional democracy.