Review of Urban Planning Commission (UPC) is a part of the legal process in Taiwan urban planning system. It plays a decisive role to determine the final content of a master or a detail plan. In recent years, however, several controversial urban planning projects have harmed the credibility of the UPC review system. People question the objectivity and impartiality of the UPC. In light of this, this study aims to explore the institutional dilemma of the UPC review system from an accountability perspective. The result shows that the institutional design does give the heads of different levels of government, who are responsible for the urban planning review affairs, considerable jurisdiction to manipulate the review result of UPC. Nevertheless, the result of expert questionnaire survey shows that planning community in Taiwan highly support present institutional design. This situation would make the reform of the institutional arrangement of UPC review system become difficult. Based on the understanding, a more pragmatic way is suggested - to adjust the accountability mechanism and to create a multi-principal structure embedded in the UPC review system. By strengthening social accountability and decreasing administrative accountability of the UPC, the jurisdiction of the heads of different levels of government can be reasonably confined and let the operation of UPC in accordance with the expectation of the society.