The President promulgated the amendments to Articles 49, 73, 204 and 229 of the Administrative Procedure Law by way of the Hua-Zong-One-Yi-10300093281 Directive of June 18, 2014, along with the addition of Article 237-10 through Article 237-17 and the name of Chapter IV of Book 2. In the amendments, the qualifications of agents ad litem for traffic adjudication cases are relaxed (Article 49). Major amendments were made to accommodate the remedy procedure for detainees under relevant judicial interpretations by adding the procedure for detention application. The amendments are highlighted as follows.

A procedure for detention application matters is added in the amendments to Chapter IV of Book 2, which specifically stipulates the types, competent court and procedure for detention application matters. It is first stipulated that the so-called "detention matters" set forth in the Administrative Procedure Law refer to matters of objection to detention or matters of a motion for continued and extended detention under the Immigration Law, the Statute for Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area and the Statute for the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs or matters of a motion for discontinued detention pursuant to this Law (Article 237-10 as added). In addition, the competent court for matters of detention motions is the administrative litigation department of a district court, which is the court of first instance, and the administrative litigation department of the local court for the detainee shall have jurisdiction (Article 237-11 as added). The principle that the plaintiff should accommodate the defendant under Article 13 of the Administrative Procedure Law is excluded.

The procedure for detention application matters is stipulated under Article 237-12 through Article 237-17 as added. An administrative court should examine the validity of the reasons and necessity of detention when hearing a motion for objection to detention or for continued and extended detention. To allow a detainee to personally make favorable assertions, it is stipulated that an administrative court shall arraign the detainee and that the National Immigration Agency should be present to present its case (Article 237-12, Paragraph 1). In addition, since detention involves restrictions on personal freedom, it is necessary to consider if a detention disposition meets the principle of proportionality. Therefore, it is stipulated that when reviewing the necessity of detention, a court may consult the National Immigration Agency to explore the feasibility of other alternative dispositions in lieu of detention (Article 237-12, Paragraph 2).

After a court rules on continued or extended detention, the detainee and a person who may file opposition against detention may file a motion to the court to discontinue detention as the remedy if they believe that the reasons for detention are extinguished or that there is any circumstance in which the detention is not warranted or may be discontinued (Article 237-13). With respect to motions for objection to detention, discontinued detention, continued detention and extended detention, it is stipulated that a court may grant or reject such motions based on the validity of grounds (Article 237-14). Those who are dissatisfied with certain rulings, they may appeal to the High Administrative Court to seek remedies (Article 237-16). It is also stipulated that except as otherwise stipulated in this chapter, the provisions concerning a summary litigation procedure may apply mutatis mutandis (Article 237-17).