針對當事人以諸多事由請求交付法庭錄音光碟應否准許之問題，現行實務有不 同見解，本文擬先討論司法院依法院組織法第90條第2項、民事訴訟法第213條 之1及242條第6項授權訂定之辦法是否逾越法律之授權範圍，再探討准許當事人 聲請交付法庭錄音光碟可能產生之憲法疑義。
本文以為，前揭規定並無授權司法院就當事人請求交付法庭錄音光碟訂定辦法，法院不受其拘束，最高法院近期作成之102年度民議字第5號決議，亦持相同 見解。再者，參諸聯合國人權事務委員會第16號一般性意見具體闡釋公民與政治 權利國際公约第17條隱私權規定：「政府機關、私人機構或個人以電腦、資料庫 及其他設備蒐集或儲存個人資料，均需由法律予以規定。各國應採取有效措施確保 個人私生活資料不會落入未經法律授權蒐集、處理及使用之人手中，且不會持以作 違反公约之事。」實施法庭錄音之目的不論係為辅助筆錄製作或促進司法行政監督 之行使，法院逕自將法庭錄音光碟交付與當事人，均無從有效達成上開目的，縱有 助於目的之達成，相較於使訴訟關係人聲紋資訊等個人資料陷於持有者得任意複製 或傳播之風險，經由承審法院勘驗並更正筆錄内容，或由權責機關調閱該等資訊以進行司法行政監督，不僅為侵害訴訟關係人權利較小之手段，且更有助於前開目的之達成。

Regulation of Audio Recording in Court was made by the Judicial Juan of R.O.C., pursuant to Article 92 (2) of the Act of the Court Organization, Article 47 of the Act of the Administrative Court Organization, Article 213bis of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 100bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This article discuss whether Judicial Juan of R.O.C. could made such regulation allowing the court provides court audio recordings to the litigants, which has been controversial in court decisions in the Republic of China.
Court audio recording evolved voiceprint of individuals in the litigation, allowing litigants to copy court audio recordings will be an invasion to the right to privacy, which is mentioned in Human Rights Committee General Comment No.16 concerning Article 25 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ”The gathering and holding of personal information on computers... by public authorities …must be regulated by law. Effective measures have to be taken by States to ensure that information concerning a person's private life does not reach the hands of persons who are not authorized by law to receive, process and use it, and is never used for purposes incompatible with the Covenant...” Therefore, the Supreme Court of R.O.C. has decided recently that allowing litigants requesting court audio recordings in civil cases violates Article 213bis of the Code of Civil Procedure.