我國法雖未承認被告有自我辯護權，惟於刑事訴訟法第31 條第1 項規定強制辯護範圍外的案件中，如被告未選任辯護人或法院未指定辯護人，可視為被告行使自我辯護權。然因被告法律知識無法與檢察官相互抗衡，基於公平法院要求，似應要求法院在必要時保障非強制辯護被告的辯護權，以免所進行的審判程序過於向控方傾斜而失其公平，蓋法律所保障者為公平審判之機會，辯護權保障亦僅及於訴訟攻防機會之平等，而不及於被告必獲無罪之判決。

Although the criminal justice system in Taiwan does not clearly recognize the accused the right to proceed pro se, the accused actually proceeds pro se if there is no counsel at trial in cases of non-mandatory required representation by defense counsel according to Paragraph 1 of Article
31 of the ROC CPC. Based on a theory of fair trial, as a result, the court is supposed to protect the right to counsel of the pro se defendant to compete with the prosecutor. In any event, the fair trial only reserves the chance of a fair game instead of a promise of acquitting the accused at the end.