The establishment of an institution responsible for the discipline of civil servants in our country precedes our Constitution. The Committee for the Discipline of Civil Servants was established during the period of the Peking Government. During the period of the Nanjing Government, the Organization Act of Public Functionary Disciplinary Sanction Commission was enacted in June 1931, pursuant to which the Public Functionary Disciplinary Sanction Commission was established under the Judicial Yuan. The Commission members met, reviewed, and decided on cases of disciplining civil servants through resolutions. After the Constitution took effect, the power to discipline civil servants gradually moved from the executive branch to the judicial branch. In 1985, the Civil Servants Disciplinary Sanctions Act and the Organization Act of Public Functionary Disciplinary Sanction Commission were amended. Important amendments were made to how the Public Functionary Disciplinary Sanction Commission adjudicates disputes and the remedies available to disciplined civil servants. Such amendments include: adopting the principle of criminal punishment and disciplinary sanction proceeding at the same time (criminal punishment precedes disciplinary sanction only in exceptional circumstances), adding retrial as a remedy for disciplined civil servants, barring resignation and retirement during the disciplinary procedure, adding standards by which the severity of disciplinary sanctions is evaluated, the statute of limitations for disciplinary actions. The disciplinary power may be exercised toward civil servants and impeached military personnel, according to Interpretation No. 262 of the Judicial Yuan. Other misconduct by military personnel continues to be adjudicated by the military under the Act on the Discipline of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

From its amendment on May 3, 1985 to May 2015, the political, economic, and social structure of our country went through a significant transformation, and the legal theory of the relationship between civil servants and the country changed in tandem. The traditional theory that disciplinary actions based on the status of civil servants cannot be challenged and reviewed in courts was changed by Judicial Yuan Interpretation Nos. 187, 243, 266, and 298. Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 396 made on February 2, 1996 states that the institution exercising the disciplinary power shall be organized as a court and that the adjudication of disciplinary actions shall, pursuant to the due process of law, accord sufficient procedural protection to the persons to be disciplined. Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 433 states that the absence of upper limits for the number of years during which the persons disciplined cannot work for the government adversely affects the rights of such persons. Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 583 defines the period during which disciplinary power may be exercised depending on the type and severity of disciplinary sanctions. Judicial Yuan Interpretation Nos. 446 and 610 concern whether the period during which a retrial may be sought violated the right to litigate and the principle of equality. These Judicial Yuan Interpretations enhance the protection of the rights and interests of civil servants. Therefore, to improve the institution of the discipline of civil servants, it was necessary to amend the Civil Servants Disciplinary Sanctions Act pursuant to the aforementioned Judicial Yuan Interpretations and the needs of the society in development.

The Civil Servants Disciplinary Sanctions Act was amended on May 20, 2015. In addition to the aforementioned Judicial Yuan Interpretations, the amendments drew on the rules in Germany’s Act on the Discipline of Federal Civil Servants. The objectives are to make disciplinary actions more effective, the organization function as a court, and the procedures more precise. The goal was to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of adjudication by judicializing the adjudication of disciplinary cases. The Organization Act of Public Functionary Disciplinary Sanction Commission was amended on May 6, 2015. The adjudication of disciplinary cases was changed from all commission members deliberating in meetings to judicial panels consisting of justices. The number of panels depends on the number of cases and their complexity. Decisions are made in judgments and rulings. These are significant changes to the system of the discipline of civil servants.

On June 10, 2020, the President signed the Civil Servants Disciplinary Sanctions Act and the Disciplinary Court Organization Act. Pursuant to the authorization of these two statutes, the Judicial Yuan issued an Order to rename the Public Functionary Disciplinary Sanction Commission as Disciplinary Court, Chairperson as Chief Justice of the Court, and the Commission Member as Justice. The Disciplinary Court consists of Disciplinary Judicial Panels and Disciplinary Chambers of the Judiciary. Disciplinary Judicial Panels were established to adjudicate disciplinary cases involving civil servants. The Disciplinary Chambers of the Judiciary previously established within the Judicial Yuan were, after the amendment of the Judges Act, moved to the Disciplinary Court on July 17, 2020. After the Civil Servants Disciplinary Sanctions Act was amended in 2020, the Disciplinary Court will adjudicate disciplinary cases involving civil servants exclusively. A system of one-level-two-instances was established, affording the protection of the second instance to the civil servants allegedly subject to disciplinary sanctions.

The amendment of the Civil Servants Disciplinary Sanctions Act and the establishment of the Disciplinary Court makes the operation of the disciplinary system return to its judicial nature. The adjudication of and remedies for disciplinary cases are improved due to the transition from a commission to a court. The effectiveness in maintaining the discipline of public servants and the strengthening of the protection of the rights and interests of public servants is significantly enhanced. This is the best evidence that the Judicial Yuan implements the Judicial Reform well.