第七次修憲當中，將總統、副總統之彈劾案交由司法院大法官組成憲法法庭審理，是將法律問題回歸司法審判之重要修正，不能僅以廢除國民大會後權限調整之觀點視之。我國憲法中關於總統、副總統之彈劾制度，迭經變更，彈劾提出機關與審理機關幾經調整，提出機關由監察院改為立法院，審理機關則由國民大會易為司法院。現行總統之職權，歷經諸次修憲之後，不減反增，享有一定之行政權。憲法上設有總統、副總統之「罷免」及「彈劾」兩種不同之控制設計，前者為政治責任之監督方式，後者屬於法律責任之追究手段，不可混為一談。然而，憲法中並無彈劾事由之明文。惟總統為國家元首，地位崇隆，加以彈劾係屬國家之憲政大事，應限於抵觸憲法或法律之重大事由，方得為之。彈劾案之審理既涉及法律責任之釐清，由司法院大法官組成憲法法庭審理，無論從權力分立或法律專業判斷之角度而言，皆應予肯定。

On June 7, 2005, the National Assembly of Taiwan recognized the new Constitutional Amendment Bill that was passed by the Legislative Yuan, transferring the power to impeach the President and Vice President to the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan. The impeachment process for the President and Vice President was modified a number of times. Articles 100 and 27 of the original Constitution distinguish the impeachment and recall of the President and Vice President, which are administered by the Control Yuan and the National Assembly. Therefore, it was mentioned in Interpretation No. 15 of the Judicial Yuan. It would contradict the original intent of the Constitution to distinguish and separate these powers if a member of the Control Yuan were to concurrently serve as a delegate to the National Assembly, which amounts to having the same individual exercise the power of impeachment and recall. But according to Article 2 of the 1997 constitutional amendment, the power to submit the impeachment of the President and the Vice President to the National Assembly falls onto the Legislative Yuan. Due to the abolition of the National Assembly in the 2005 constitutional reform, the judgment and punishment in impeachment cases against the President and Vice President must be systematically modified. The constitutional issues surrounding this new amendment will be discussed in this article.