Enforcement Rules of the Control Act Article 14-1

After the impeachment case has been decided by the disciplinary court, should the members of the Control Yuan other than the initiators of the case or the people believe that there are statutory reasons for retrial, the relevant committees shall notify the initiators for review and ratification. If the initiators believe that the statutory reasons for retrial are met, it shall be brought to the disciplinary court in accordance with the law for retrial. However, if the initiators for any reason cannot ratify, it shall be handled in accordance with Article 11.If the initiators do not believe that statutory reasons for retrial have been met, but after the review and ratification by the committee in the preceding paragraph, it is deemed necessary to initiate a retrial investigation, then two or more members of the committee members other than the initiators of the case shall be assigned or assigned in rotation, and a retrial investigation report shall be submitted.The review of the retrial investigation report in the preceding paragraph shall be conducted by members of the Control Yuan other than the initiators, and the provisions of Articles 4 to 6 shall apply mutatis mutandis. After review, should it be determined that there are statutory reasons for retrial, and it shall be immediately transferred to the disciplinary court for initiation of a retrial.After filing for retrial in accordance with the preceding paragraph, the relevant litigation documents shall be served to the Control Yuan and shall immediately be sent to the appointed committee members referred to in Paragraph 2 for deliberation.
中文原文 監察法施行細則第14-1條
彈劾案經懲戒法院判決確定後,如提案委員以外之監察委員或人民認有法定再審事由,應由各有關委員會通知提案委員核議,經提案委員認符合法定再審事由,即依法向懲戒法院提起再審之訴。
但提案委員因故不能核議時,依第十一條但書規定辦理。
提案委員認不符合法定再審事由,惟經前項委員會審查決議,認有提起再審調查之必要者,即應推派或輪派原提案委員以外二人以上委員為之,並提出再審調查報告。
前項再審調查報告之審查,由提案委員以外之監察委員為之,並準用第四條至第六條規定辦理。
經審查決定有法定再審事由,應即移送懲戒法院提起再審之訴。
依前項提起再審之訴後,相關訴訟文書送達監察院,應即送請第二項之推派或輪派委員核議。

English translation for reference only; the Chinese text prevails. Not legal advice.