大法官向來有關合憲訴訟救濟建構之見解，是從強調以個案訴訟程序之性質、種類與功能等，作為判斷之準據。如此見解之基本問題，是在於見樹不見林，以司法院釋字第 665 號解釋之訴訟救濟見解為例，該號解釋對於系爭問題，也就是有關檢察官得否對停止羈押裁定抗告之議題，由於定性不夠精確，以致未能從宏觀之有利被告裁判觀點而為問題之論述。就此而言，在憲法禁止雙重危險原則影響下之美國有利被告裁判法制（18 USC § 3731）之規定，便有其參考價值。然更重要的是，自美國法 18 USC § 3731 有利被告裁判法制形成之過程觀之，更襯托了大法官有關訴訟救濟見解之不足。亦即，是項制度之演變是經過複雜之過程，其中重要關鍵，是在於憲法文本之影響、法院組織之調整、釋憲者之實務作為以及三權間釋憲對話之結果。而以此對我國及美國法之分析為基礎，本文主張，有關合憲性訴訟救濟之建構，必須從憲法文本強化開始，俾以給予釋憲者釋憲之正當性基礎，同時較細緻之憲法文本規範，將有利於問題之定性與討論之聚焦。其次，合憲訴訟救濟之建構，在各方利益糾纏下，必須以釋憲對話方式為佳。復次，強調合憲訴訟救濟之問題，不需以解釋憲法文本為唯一解決途徑，從訴訟實務之操作上，亦可為合憲訴訟救濟制度之建構。最後，本文將嘗試勾勒出於釋憲對話下，三個憲政機關於合憲訴訟救濟建構議題上應有之角色與作為。

The Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan always think that the constitutionality of a particular litigation process depends on the character, nature and function of the case at issue. The Interpretation No. 665 is an excellent example. However, the main problem of this opinion lies in that the Grand Justices have not precisely characterized the specific issue of a particular first. Moreover, failing to understand the importance of characterization, the Grand Justices also fail to construct an overall constitutional framework of the litigation system. This paper would stress that to construct a constitutional litigation process we should begin from enacting a more detailed constitutional texts. Besides, we should rely on the approach of constitutional dialogues to establish a better system of constitutional litigation process. Therefore, it would establish a better constitutional approach of designing judicial process here in Taiwan.