我國憲政體制究竟是屬於偏內閣制還是偏總統制的半總統制，純 粹從憲法條文來觀察並不容易得到明確的答案。這是因爲相較於世界 上其他半總統制國家的憲法，我國憲法對於憲政體制的規範密度明顯 較低，致使學者對於我國憲政體制的內涵各有不同的法理詮釋。這些 詮釋觀點的關鍵差異，主要是對於我國總統憲法權力的看法不同，尤 其是對於總統任命閣揆的權力有不同見解。本文以我國總統任命閣揆 的憲法權力爲焦點，探討我國憲政體制定位的法理爭議；並以總統與 國會不一致時的組閣爭議爲主要線索，探討我國憲政體制的實際定位 與走向。本文認爲，儘管我國憲政體制的定位在法理上頗有爭議，但 從過去總統與國會多數不一致與歷次政黨輪替交接期的實際組閣情況 來看，幾乎已完全確立我國憲政體制是偏總統制的半總統制。

Whether Taiwan’s constitutional system, semi-presidentialism, is considered to be parliamentarism-oriented or presidentialism-oriented can not be easily judged merely based on the constitution. Compared to the constitutions of other countries that adopt semi-presidentialism, Taiwan’s constitution apparently has less specifications regarding the constitutional system, and this is the reason why there are many different legal interpretations on Taiwan’s constitutional system. The key factor that causes the difference among these interpretations is the understanding of the president’s constitutional powers, especially the power to appoint the premier. Focusing on the president’s power to appoint the premier, this paper tries to explore the legal dispute surrounding Taiwan’s constitutional system, and to discover its actual position and the trend behind by investigating the controversy of cabinet formation under the circumstances when the president and the parliament disagree with each other. The finding is that, legally speaking, the position of Taiwan’s constitutional system is rather debatable, but it is almost certain that Taiwan’s constitutional system is semi-presidentialism and it is presidentialism-oriented according to the past few incidents of actual cabinet formation under the circumstances that the president and the parliament disagreed with each other.