許可制與報備制同屬對集會遊行自由之預防性事前抑制措施，兩相比較之下，報備制係屬侵害較小之更為和緩手段，且同樣能達成許可制所欲達成之目的，故一直以來，學界多支持報備制，而近期行政部門及其他相關修正草案，亦均改採報備制。特別是在司法院釋字第七四四號解釋對於化妝品廣告之「事前審查」，揭示：其係「對言論自由之重大干預，原則上應為違憲。」應適用最嚴格的審查基準後，對於同屬表現自由範疇之集會遊行自由領域，許可制似已幾無立足之空間。然是否只要制度上採取報備制，即能符合憲法保障集會自由之要求？到底採取報備制仍須注意哪些事情？以及許可制果真無法見容於集會遊行領域？等相關課題，仍有進一步探究之必要。

As the means of preventive and prior restrain measure on the freedom of assembly and procession, the reporting system, when compared to the approval system, may cause less interference and damage to the freedom, which appears to be more mitigating and is able to achieve the same goals as the approval system does. The academia and the administrations as well as other relevant amendments have long been in favour of the approval system as it is considered a better method. In J.Y. Interpretation No. 744, with the most stringent standard of “strict scrutiny,” the Constitutional Court, reacting to the prior censorship of drug advertisements, adopted the standard that a severe interference with the freedom of speech shall be presumed unconstitutional, implying that the approval system is not apparently probable in proper protection of the freedom of expression. However, issues such as whether or not the reporting system meets the requirements of the protection of the freedom of assembly and procession constitutionally, the need for discussing progressive procedures for the reporting system, or the feasibility of the adoption of the approval system for assembly and procession remain unresolved. Therefore, this article investigates the abovementioned issues and conducts further research.