為建立完善無缺漏之權利保障，應由行政法院直接定性行政處分，另以日本、德國及美國公務人員救濟制度建議修正我國救濟制度走向單軌制，並應強化正當程序原則之適用，以及擴大調處制度之運用，並配合行政訴訟法增訂之調解與濫訴機制，以提供及時有效的權利救濟。 ;The scope of remedies for civil servants in our country has gradually expanded with the practice of constitutional interpretation. The interpretation revealed in Constitutional Interpretation No. 785 establishes the constitutional principle that "where there is a right, there is a remedy," indicating that the constitutional litigation right is protected regardless of the status of being a civil servant, and it does not restrict the subsequent filing of administrative litigation after filing an appeal or a second appeal. However, although its amendment breaks through the constraints of the "special power relationship," the current legal framework for protecting civil servants utilizes "administrative sanctions" as the target of administrative review, creating a dual-track remedy approach with appeals and second appeals. Under the interpretation of constitutionality, there may still be limitations on whether specific cases can be reasonably and effectively handled to safeguard the fundamental right to litigation. The establishment of principles regarding the criteria for determining "obviously minor interference" as stated in the interpretation document should be developed through the accumulation of administrative court precedents to ensure appropriateness.
In order to establish a perfect protection of rights, the administrative court should directly determine the administrative punishment. In addition, it is recommended to revise the relief system of our country to a single-track system based on the relief system of public servants in Japan, Germany, and the United States. The application of the principle of due process should be strengthened, and mediation should be expanded. The application of the system, and cooperate with the new mediation and abuse mechanism of the Administrative Litigation Law, in order to provide timely and effective rights relief.
