論組織性法律保留

與憲法採取了多層級的組織性法律保留不同，《立法法》第8條第2項對各級人大、政府、法院、檢察院的產生、組織和職權統統實行了法律保留。《立法法》與憲法的不一致說明，組織性法律保留需要與憲法保留、行政保留、司法保留等進行協調，從而來合理界定組織性法律保留的範圍。對於產生，最高國家機關的產生應當實行憲法保留。對於職權，現行憲法對全國人大及其常委會、國務院的職權實行了憲法保留，檢察機關基於其法律監督機關的定位，其職權同時實行憲法保留和法律保留。對於組織，我國立法上的組織傾向於對內組織，但對內組織屬於各個國家機關的組織權的範疇，除了立法機關外，其他國家機關的對內組織實行法律保留是不現實的。

Different from the multi-level organizational legal reservation adopted by the Constitution, Article 8(2)of the Legislation Law has all implemented legal reservations for the creation, organization, and powers of people’s congresses, governments, courts, and procuratorates at all levels. The inconsistency between the Legislative Law and the Constitution shows that organizational legal reservations need to be coordinated with constitutional reservations, administrative reservations, and judicial reservations to reasonably define the scope of organizational legal reservations. First, the creation of the highest state organs should be subject to constitutional reservations. Second, the current constitution reserves the powers of the National People’s Congress, its Standing Committee, and the State Council. Based on its position as a legal supervision agency, the procuratorial organs implement both constitutional and legal reservations. Finally, the organization in China law tend to internal organizations, but internal organizations belong to the category of the organizational power of various state organs. Except for the legislature, it is unrealistic for other state organs to adopt legal reservations for internal organizations.