1.

The law is void for vagueness if it is unclear or ambiguous which leaves the law
enforcers and leads to an erratic and arbitrary decisions which are based on individual
impressions and personal predictions. In the present case, the Anti-Terror law uses an
elusive definition of terrorism that can subject suspects, apprehended without a warrant,
to weeks of detention prior to an appearance before a judge. Thus, the definition of
terrorism appears to be void for vagueness. (paragraph 71)

2. If the law restricts several protected rights in the constitution, the Court will declare the
said law as unconstitutional because it affects and violates existing rights. In the case,
vagueness of a single word which is terrorism provides a connection that terror crimes
such as threat; planning, training, facilitating; proposal; inciting; and recruitment
described will violate freedoms of speech, religion and association. The Anti-Terror law
are restriction and invasion of other constitutional rights. (paragraph 72)