二○○五年二月二十七日「世界衛生組織菸草控制框架公約」（WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control，WHO FCTC）正式生效後，世界各國皆受此影響而修法擴大禁止菸品廣告，廣泛禁止、全面禁止菸品廣告似已蔚為潮流，但公約同時揭示應採取何種具體管控措施，需依各國憲法意旨為之，於是各國對相關規範的合憲性質疑仍方興未艾。 就筆者所知，目前各國憲法裁判實務，涉及菸品廣告限制且與言論自由直接相關者，除美國聯邦最高法院曾有一則二○○一年 Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly 案外，就屬加拿大聯邦最高法院為數最多，計有：一九九五年 RJR-MacDonald Inc., et al. v. Attorney General of Canada 案及二○○七年 Canada (Attorney General) v. JTI-Macdonald Corp., et al. 案等兩案，其餘我國常參酌之德國、日本，以及近來憲法裁判素質備受推崇的南非，若非無相關案例，即相關案例憲法爭議仍未終局確定。 我國「菸害防制法」於二○○七年七月十一日修正，將菸品廣告由原則禁止改為全面禁止，並自二○○九年一月十一日施行，新法施行後，已有若干案件繫屬於法院，多數案件皆有對新法規範提出合憲性質疑，但一般法院法官於審理案件時並未深究，僅以寥寥數語帶過。新法菸品廣告之限制是否合憲，最終需由司法院大法官作成解釋，但綜觀歷來有關商業性言論之解釋，論理尚不清晰，應有參酌外國法之必要。 本文選擇加拿大法作為借鏡，除其案例豐富外，更有以下幾點考量：其一，加拿大與我國皆有簽署前述公約（我國為實質締約國）；其二，該國法制為我國二○○七年修法擴大禁止菸品廣告所參考法例；其三，該國憲法第一條公權力限制條款與我國憲法第二十三條相似，其用以權衡公權力干預人民權利的判準－歐克斯檢驗（Oakes Test），亦與我國憲法比例原則類似。 筆者希冀透過他山之石考察，對菸品廣告限制的合憲性判斷提供棉薄助益，並進一步對政府管控諸如菸、酒、博弈等「惡習商品」（“vice” products）廣告之合憲性，提供不同思考。

The “World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) officially entered into force on February 27, 2005. Under the Convention’s influence, many countries have amended their own laws to expand the scope of the ban on tobacco advertising; and the “com-prehensive ban”, or the “complete ban” on tobacco advertising seems to be-come the mainstream nowadays. However, the Convention also stipulates at the same time that the implementation of specific measures should be in ac-cordance with the original intent of individual signatory country’s own con-stitution. Thus, the challenges to the constitutionality of relevant legislations have started to emerge. To the best of this author’s knowledge, the Supreme Court of the United States has reviewed just one relevant case - Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001), in comparison with cases which are involving tobacco advertising ban and directly related to issues concerning freedom of speech. The Su-preme Court of Canada has reviewed two relevant cases, already the most in terms of number as comparing pertinent cases that have reviewed by other constitutional courts or their equivalents elsewhere in the world. The said two Canadian cases are: RJR-MacDonald Inc., et al. v. Attorney General of Can-ada (1995), and Canada (Attorney General) v. JTI-MacDonald Corp., et al. (2007). There are neither relevant cases nor concluded relevant cases that can be utilized for the current study found in the oft-referenced countries like Germany, Japan, as well as in the highly respected South Africa Constitu-tional Court (because of its quality works in recent years) . In this country (the Republic of China on Taiwan), “partial ban” on the tobacco advertising has changed to “complete ban” in accordance with the new “Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act” which was amended on July 11, 2007 and became effective on January 11, 2009. Lacking the power of judicial re-view, the judges of the common courts in this country simply cannot prop-erly address the constitutionality issue resulting from the possible trial of any tobacco advertising-related cases. Ultimately, it requires the “Justice of the Constitutional Court, Judicial Yuan of the Republic of China on Taiwan” to deliver its (J.Y.) interpretations regarding the constitutionality issue inher-ently in the amended Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act. After a comprehen-sive survey, this author found that theories underlying the (J.Y.) interpreta-tions of commercial speech in Taiwan still unclear and thus called for the study of various relevant foreign cases which are related to the constitutional-ity issue. Besides its many resourceful cases, using relevant Canadian Supreme Court decisions as the main reference in this study has other merits: 1, both Canada and ROC on Taiwan are signatory parties to the said Convention (WHO FCTC). ROC is a “substantive” signatory party, despite the fact that it has not completed the whole signatory procedure due to its disadvantageous political status as a non-UN member; 2, the amended 2007 Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act has already used the relevant Canadian legislation as its main reference; 3, The Article 1 of the Canadian Constitution (regarding the re-strictive clauses on government authority) is similar in meaning to the Article 23 of the ROC Constitution. The “Oakes Test” adopted by the Canadian as a criterion in assessing the extent to which the government might impair the people’s rights in question is also parallel to the “principle of proportionality” found in the ROC Constitution law. This author sincerely hopes that the proper appraisal of the constitution-ality of legislation in controlling tobacco advertising could be attained through the examination of relevant Canadian Supreme Court decisions, and further understanding of different perspectives about constitutionality of those advertising in governmental control of the so-called “vice” products, such as tobacco, alcohol, and gambling, etc., could also be obtained.