本案解釋是另一個從過去解釋 ( 釋字第四一四號解釋 ) 之不同意見發展出多數意見的例子，確立商業言論應與他種言論同樣受到憲法保障的立場，雖未對憲法第十一條保障的言論或商業言論提供完整的內涵式定義，但卻首度指明該條所稱之「言論」包括「主觀意見之表達」與「客觀事實陳述」兩個外延的部分。此為言論自由保障上不應忽略的分類概念，在菸品標示的問題上具有實益，因為成分標示重在客觀事實陳述，警語標示則重在主觀意見之表達。本案解釋以菸品成分標示之法令強制規定為審查客體，而不及於政府健康警語之置入命令；至本案解釋之權利標的所及，則為菸商的菸品成分表述，而非政府的健康警語表述。 本案解釋認為憲法保障商業言論有多元之理由。菸品成分標示，雖然涉及資訊提供的性質較著，但亦不能謂與商業言論實現自我與意見形成的功能，毫無關係。 本案解釋涉及商業言論限制的主要型態是不表意自由的限制，成分標示限制雖然只是強制為事實資訊之提供，仍然限制了不提供資訊的自由意顧，足以啟動違憲審查。至於政府健康警語標示，則涉及不散布他人意見之自由限制，不是本案解釋的客體。 本案解釋運用比例原則從事違憲審查，詳細展示了我國憲法上比例原則的四道檢驗步驟，說理詳細完整，前所罕見。雖然余雪明大法官以為本案解釋之多數意見係在使用中度的審查基準從事審查，但本文作者基於三點理由認為大法官吏傾向於從事嚴格的審查以期對言論自由給予更為周延的保障。

Interpretation Shih No. 577 evolved from the dissenting opinion of a previous one (Shih No. 414). Shih No. 577's proposition is that commercial speech merits constitutional safeguard as other types of speech do. While it does not provide a thorough, definitive description to describe what speech or commercial speech is under the umbrella of Art. 11 of the R.O.C. Constitution, Shih No. 577 for the first time stated that under Art. 11, speech encompasses“expressions of subjective opinions” and “statements of objective facts,” two distinctly categorical concepts that cannot be neglected when labeling regulations on tobacco products are under judicial review. To be more specific, in terms of labeling regulations on tobacco products, requirements of ingredients are more about statements of objective facts, and health warnings more about expressions of subjective opinions. Shih No. 577 reviews regulatory requirements on cigarette-ingredients labeling instead of compulsory government health warnings; under its review are the ingredients indications by the tobacco companies, not health warnings from the government. Shih No. 577 takes the position that there are many reasons for constitutional protections extended to commercial speech. Requirements of cigarette-ingredients labeling involve more of constitutional values on the free flow of information, but is not irrelevant to the values of self-realization or the formation process of opinions through commercial speech. Shih No. 577 places its focus on the constitutionality of regulatory restrictions on the right not to speak. The requirements on ingredients compel disclosure of factual information, constrain upon one's free will of not providing information, and trigger judicial review. As to government health-warning requirements that place restrictions upon the freedom not to disseminate others' opinions, it is not a subject for Shih No. 577. This interpretation employs the principle of proportionality to complete the exercise of judicial review. A four-part analysis was explored in detail to an extent that was never shown by the Grand Justices before. Although Grand Justice H.M. Yu observed that the majority was conducting intermediary scrutiny, the author presents at least three different points to argue that the majority is inc1ined to strict scrutiny for offering better protection on the freedom of speech.