2011 年我國法官法公布後，法官之權利義務及監督機制，即步入一個嶄新的里程碑。其中最令人關注的議題之一即是：如何維持法官獨立性與職務監督彼此間之衡平關係？因為過大（強）的職務監督會損及法官之獨立性；但過微（小）的監督關係則又會因法官之諸多違失行為，而損及人民訴訟權之保障，如何允執厥中，誠屬法學上之難題。 法官法第 19 條至第 21 條規範「職務監督」之主要內容，包含職務監督之原則、措施、監督權人、監督處分及救濟管道。由於法官法立法時對於「職務監督」似採狹義見解，僅包含制止法官違法行使職權、糾正法官不當言論及督促法官依法迅速執行職務，卻未包含在實務上甚為重要之監督措施，例如：法官職務評定及法官職務調動在內，甚為可議！因此，本論文乃採廣義「職務監督」之七種態樣，討論其對法官獨立之影響，以及我國職務法庭之法律見解進行評析，亦即分別對於法官之調動處分、警告處分、停職處分、懲戒處分、個案評鑑決議及宣告法官會議司法事務分配決議違法處分進行細緻法理討論，並提出諸多問題以及與實務不同看法之法律見解，以供未來執法及修法參考。 最後討論德國法官法上之「核心理論」及「外部秩序」理論，比較對照我國職務法庭對「核心範圍理論」的見解，提出本文之看法，並認為修正法官法職務監督相關規定及體系性評析職務法庭裁判之見解，乃為最迫切之法學任務，以確保法官獨立之憲政原則不會受到危害。

The announcement of Judges Act in 2011 marks a mile stone in judges’ rights, obligations, and supervising mechanism. One of the high-profile issues that derived from Judges Act is how to seek balance between judge independency and supervision of duties, which is not an easy task, since overly intense supervision would undermine judge independency, but inadequate supervision would also impair the right of instituting legal proceedings guaranteed to the people due to misconduct of judges. The primary contents of supervision of duties regulated in Article 19 to 21 of Judges Act include principles of supervision of duties, individuals having the supervision authority, measures, and channel to seek remedy. The “supervision of duties” defined in Judges Act includes prohibiting a judge from committing illegal conduct while carrying out duties, correcting a judge's improper speech or conduct, and prompting a judge to expedite the execution of duties in accordance with the law. However, other important supervision measures taken in practice, such as evaluation on a judge’s performance and duty transfer, seems to be excluded from supervision of duties according to Judges Act. This is clearly an issue that needs further discussion. Hence, supervision of duties mentioned in this article includes: transfer disposition, warning disposition, suspension disposition, discipline disposition, case evaluating resolution, and disposition to declare resolution of allocation of judicial affairs made by Council of Judges illegal. This article will discuss how supervision of duties affects judge independency, review legal opinions of the Court of Judiciary, raise several legal issues, and put forward few legal opinions that are different from judicial practice. Lastly, this article will compare “core theory” and “exterior order theory” in Germany Judges Act to “core extent theory” mentioned by the Court of Judiciary in Taiwan, which leads to the conclusion that in order to ensure judge independency demanded by the Constitution, the stipulations regarding to supervision of duties in Judges Act should be amended, and a systematic review on the legal opinions of the Court of Judiciary is urgently required.