本文主要是檢討我國監察制度中的糾正權問題，作者將抱持著法理學的觀點，公平嚴謹的反省我國監察院的糾正權之立法要旨及其手段與目的。 就現行憲法及其增修條文來看，監察院已改成「準司法機關」，為國家最高監察機關，行使彈劾、糾舉、審計、糾正等權，其中爭議性最多的就是糾正權。就現監察法與監察法施行細則來看，目前監察院實際運作的職權與工作執掌，大概有九項：收受人民書狀、調查、彈劾、糾舉、糾正、巡迴監察、監試、審計、受理公職人員財產申報等，其中，糾正權及其糾正案所佔的份量，相當的重。 監察院可調查行政院及其屬機關之施行與設施，認為有違法或失職之事，由相關的委員會調查並得提出糾正案文，以作為行政院內閣或其部會改進施政之參考，被糾正機關必須做出正確的舉措，並呈報監察院糾正案復文。在這期間所衍生的諸多糾正權問題，頗值得吾人探討。就本文的脈絡而言，本文關心與討論所在是：監察制度中糾正權的存在理念、存在性質、存在效力、行使對象、行使程序等五個中心課題，在法理學上的根本原理為何？其精神與目的是什麼？

　　　　　This paper examines the problems with "the corrective power" of the Control Yuan of the Republic of China on Taiwan, and its basic means and ends in the ombudsman system from an impartial legal philosophical perspective. The Control Yuan is the highest control body of the State, exercising the powers of impeachment, censure, audit and correction, as stipulated in the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the ROC. The Control Yuan may investigate the operations and installations of the Executive Yuan and its subordinate organizations and propose corrective measures, which will be examined by relevant committees and referred to the ministry or commission concerned. This corrected body must take appropriate action and report to the Control Yuan in writing.