現行司法院大法官審理案件法全文僅三十五條，所定程序簡略，不敷應用，實務上造成審理不易，窒礙難行。司法院有鑑及此，積極推動解釋制度司法化，將大法官行使解釋權之方法，由往昔之會議改以法庭方式行之。精心設計，擬具「司法院大法官審理案件法修正草案」，第一○九條，所定內容詳盡精緻，鉅細靡遺，以充分發揮大法官之釋憲功能。然大法官行使憲法所定之解釋權，究與法院行使審判權不同。因法院行使審判權，應以判決程序行之；在判決程序，必須有利害相反對立之當事人（原告及被告）。在大法官行使解釋權，除總統、副總統彈劾案件及政黨違憲解散案件外，僅有聲請人而無相對人，缺乏訟爭性，法院無從對兩造命行言詞辯論，以及為聲請或抗辯有無理由之裁判，其設計顯不符判決程序之基本要求。本文列述不宜採解釋制度法庭化之理由，以供參考，庶免草案完成立法程序後，在實務上窒礙難行。

The incumbent Constitutional Interpretation Procedure Act merely consists of 35 articles. With this simple proceeding, this Act is difficult to be put into judicial practice. Therefore, the Judicial Yuan has been actively promoting the legalization of interpretation system, which changes the interpretation method from meeting to court proceedings. The delicately-designed draft amendment is comprised of 109 articles. However, the interpretation right of grand justices is different in essence with the jurisdiction right of courts. In courts, the jurisdiction right shall be conducted by judgment proceedings, which is composed of plaintiffs and defendants. On the contrary, there only exists a petitioner in constitutional interpretation proceedings except the impeachment of the president or the vice president and the dissolution of unconstitutional political parties. The court cannot conduct oral arguments between two opposite parties under this circumstance. This article articulates the inconvenience of legalization of the interpretation system and thus prevent possible impracticability.