本文旨在介紹德國關於地方自治制度性保障之憲法基礎與釋義學內涵，以供國內討論進一步參酌之用。其中關於地方自治制度性保障內涵與審查模式的完整開展，尤為本文所關心之重點。主要著眼於主體保障、客觀法制度保障以及主觀權利地位保障三者，並嘗試以國土計畫法中所涉及地方自治團體之計畫高權為例，檢討相關立法未能完整保障地方自治之處。倘中央之立法或行政措施限制地方自治團體之高權領域，至少即涉及邊緣範圍之地方自治。對此之侵害即必須具有公益要求，且此公益要求必須於衡量上優於地方優先原則之利益，而程序上必須賦予地方自治團體陳述意見，中央聽取意見之義務，始屬合憲。我國行政法院及司法院大法官對於如何審查中央與地方權限爭議之案例，始終欠缺合理之審查步驟與審查模式，因此常因個案而定，難有可預見之審查模式與釋義學內涵。因此必須藉由逐次逐案的累積審查案例，釐清不同類型之審查模式並予以精確、完整化，如此一來，地方自治法的後續開展方屬可期待之事。
This article aims to introduce the constitutional basis and the legal reasoning of institutional guarantees of local autonomy of local government in Germany, as a reference for further academic discussion in Taiwan. In particular, this article focuses on the content of the institutional guarantee of local autonomy of local government and the complete development of the judicial review on the local autonomy in Germany. It addresses the three aspects: the protection of legal entities, the objective institutional guarantee, and the protection of legal status. It uses the planning sovereignty of the local self-governing body in the Spatial Planning Act as an example to review how the laws fail to fully protect the autonomy of local government. If the sovereign authority of local government is limited by any legislation or any administrative action of central government, this will at least be related to the peripheral area of the local autonomy. Any infringement of the local autonomy has to be in pursuit of public interest and such public interest has to prevail over any interest brought by the principle of subsidiarity. To be compliant with procedural requirement of the Constitution, when reviewing the issue, the local government has the right to be heard and the central government has to provide local government with such chances to exercise its right to be heard. When reviewing cases involving issues related to the power distribution between central and local government, the administrative courts in Taiwan and the Constitutional Court have not established judicial review process and model. They often made judgments on a case-by-case basis. This makes the judicial review lack foreseeability. It also makes it difficult to understand the legal reasoning behind their decisions. This article reasons that it is necessary to accumulate and analyze court decisions to identify and clarify different judicial review models so that some progress may be made on the study of the laws on local self-government.
