司法院於2013年提交立法院審議中的司法院大法官審理案件法修正草案，對於解釋制度形式上重大變革，即是解釋制度司法化之內涵，以及為達成此目標所為之相關改革。本文乃由制度面向出發，探討憲法解釋之形成與革新問題，論述主軸與內容有三：首先，檢討我國現制：回顧檢視現行大法官釋憲實務之特色與問題。其次，探究德國法制與實務：論述德國聯邦憲法法院裁判之形式與組構。 再者，研析我國制度革新內容：闡明2013年版修正草案以大法官憲法解釋裁判化為改革目標之制度設計，所具體呈現憲法解釋的裁判化改革內容，釋義分析草案相關條文。本文認為，2013年版修正草案對於案件審理之流程與期限、裁判書格式，採行多數意見大法官主筆顯名制的裁判書撰寫，規範密度與範圍已然超越德國聯邦憲法法院法對於憲法訴訟案件審理與裁判之規制內涵，原則上甚為完善案件審理之程序面向，符合大法官憲法解釋維護客觀合憲秩序之本質和功能，提升形成裁判過程公信力，增進案件審理之效能，整體上誠值肯定。惟新制革新內容之功效，仍須仰賴新法通過施行後，觀察實踐面向之實務運作，始能深入檢證與評估。

The Legislative Yuan will review amendments of the Act of Governing the Decisions of the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan submitted by the Judicial Yuan in 2013, which contain significant reforms on the interpretational proceures, aiming at elucidating the details of relevant institutional reforms on judicialization of interpretation proceedings. This paper explores the formation of and reforms on the Constituional Interpretaions from a systematic perspective. Sepcifically, this paper addresses the following three major themes: (1) evaluation of the current proceedings includ reviews of existing features and problems of practices of the Constitutional Interpretation by the Grand Justices, (2) analyses of legal affairs and practices in Germany to discuss the formation and structure of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany and its judgments and decisions, and (3) examination of the new contents of the institutional reforms to illustrate the draft amendments submitted in 2013 including goals and designs of the reforms on the judicialization of the Constitutional Interpretation by the Grand Justices. This paper argues that the draft amendments submitted in 2013 has surpassed the procedure and content of case review and judgments of the constitutional litigation carried out by the Federal Consitituional Court of Germany as the amendments on case hearing timeline, and format of written delivery of judgments and decisions will adopt the majority opinion delivered by the Grand Jusitices with names displayed. Thereby, in principle, the specifications and scopes included in the draft amendeds can be considered a fitting step towards a positive direction in terms of case hearing and procedure as they uphold the objectivity and functionality of the Constitutional Interpreation by the Grand Justices, upgrade the credibility of judgment procedure, and improve the efficiency of case hearing. This paper also indicates that the effectivenss and practices of those amendments will require further assessment and e valuation after the enactment of reforms.