關於憲法第七十條「立法委員對於行政院所提預算案，不得為增加支出之提議。」由立法委員陳水扁及洪昭男提出「總預算案構造款項目節變動是否許可？問題」申請解釋，司法院大法官會議作出釋字第三九一號解釋，然因為該解釋過於機械，限縮了立法委員審議預算職權，其原因為大法官會議對總預算案財務行政實務運作之資料選取不夠，又關於解釋方法之體系解釋從總體財務行政法相關法法規，如憲法、財政收支劃分法、預算法、會計法、國庫法、決算法、審計法等通盤理解有所不足，使得解釋文的周延性及釋疑性有所不足。

In regarding to the Constitution Article Seventy, the legislalors must not propose to increase the budgetary expenditure suggested (submitted) by Executive Yuan, Legislolor Chen Hsuei –ban (陳水扁) and Hong Chow- nan (洪昭男) raised the question to the Council of Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan for intepretation that whether the money adjustment among the items are permitted. To answer the above question, the Council of Grand Justices made the Interpretation No.391 which was considered too rigid and in the meantime it limited the legislators’ evaluation and reiew power. The reson is the fact that the Council of Grand Justices did not collect enough information about the practical operation of the financial management of the budgetary case, The problem was compounded by the back of overall understanding of the general financial executive laws, such as: Constitution. Financial Revenue and Expenditure Divi­sion Law, Budgetary Law, Account Law, National Treasurey Law, Auditing Law, Financial Final Report Law, which undermine the coverage and interpretive nature of the Interpretation No.391.