國會調查權（Congressional Powers of Investigation）係國會控制行政活動的武器，這與國會的立法權（通過立法活動對政府部門的行為進行控制與監督）、財政權（給予政府部門活動經費的權利）、任命批准權（國會授予行政活動的權利）、彈劾權（對國家公職人員進行的特別刑事訴訟程序）並列為對行政機關監督的權利。綜觀各國國會調查權，可以知道，無論法國的國會職權行使法令、美國的議事規則、德國的聯邦議事規則或者是日本的議院證言法等都有國會強制權的附屬武器。原則上，調查實施時，受調查者若無正當理由拒絕證言者，或拒絕提供相關資訊文件者，應該受有懲罰，例如罰金或刑責，如作偽證者，亦同。我國過去在監察院實施調查權的相關規範中沒有制定，但在釋字第五八五號解釋中承認應該有這類的刑罰權，惟應明文規定於法律中，確定實踐法明確性原則。

Congressional Powers of Investigation is the Congressional control of administrative activities, which is related to the legislature's legislative power (the control and supervision of government departments through legislative activities), the fiscal power (the right to fund government activities) Appointment of the right of ratification (the right granted by Congress to administrative activities), the right of impeachment (special criminal procedure for public officials of the State), and the right to oversight of the executive branch. Looking at the investigative powers of the parliaments in various countries, we can see that both the Congressional Powers Act in France, the United States Rules of Procedure, the German Federal Rules of Procedure, and the Japanese House Testimony Act all have subsidiary parliamentary compulsory weapons. In principle, when the investigation is carried out, the respondent should be subject to punishment such as fines or criminal penalties, such as perjury if he or she refuses the testimony without justification or refuses to provide the relevant information and documents. In the past, there was no relevant norm in our country to implement the investigation right. However, in the Interpretation No. 585, there should be such a right of punishment, but it should be expressly stipulated in the law to determine the principle of clarity and definiteness of law.