自從我國行政程序法以專章為「法規命令」與「行政規則」賦予明文的規範架構及內涵以來，在我國行政實務中長期存在、甚至經常扮演重要角色的「職權命令」，究竟是否還有繼續存在的空間，一直是個備受爭議的問題。本文認為，職權命令的存廢爭議，其實是我國行政法釋義學長期繼受德國法的傳統，與我國憲法對於行政與立法兩權關係的規範架構產生衝突，所反映出來的結果。由此看來，職權命令究竟應否、或者如何繼續在我國行政法體系中存在，首先涉及一個憲法基本問題的釐清，亦即：我國憲法是否容許行政機關，可以在不經法律授權的前提之下，發布具有對外法律效果的（職權）命令？基於對我國憲法所預設的民主與法治架構的認知，本文將指出，我國行政機關的命令制定權，其實是立基於一套相當不同於德國基本法秩序的憲法基礎。據此，將行政命令的類型，定調為「法規命令」、「行政規則」與「職權命令」的三分法，不但不至於使我國的行政法體系，陷入繼受不全的困境，反而具有在體認我國權力分立體制不同於德
國基本法之特的前提下，透過正視職權命令的方式，貫徹原本繼受法治國與民主理念的意義。

According to the Taiwanese Administrative Procedure Act, the administrative legislation is classified into administrative regulations (Rechtsverordnungen) as well as (internal)administrative directives (Verwaltungsvorschriften), while the non-delegated legislation of the
administrative power is neither legally defined nor regulated by any written rules. Nevertheless,the problems whether the non-delegated administrative legislation is constitutionally permitted and how its constitutional limits should be determined remain highly debated. Unlike many scholars who advocate for a thorough reception of the German dichotomy of administrative legislation, I argue that the constitutionality and appropriateness of non-delegated administrative
legislation in Taiwan is to be examined not only in light of the administrative law which is deeply influenced by German Verwaltungsrechtsdogmatik, but also from the perspective that the framework of separation of powers in context of the Taiwanese Constitution is based upon a system of dual democratic legitimacy, which differs totally from the German parliamentary democracy. Viewed this way, what is crucial is not to condemn the existence of non-delegated administrative legislation, but rather to preserve its constitutional limits through clarifying its