“…Further addressing the legal aspect of Article 162, despite the Constitutional Court's ruling that Article 162 is not contrary to the constitution, the parties applying for a review argued that Article 162 in conjunction with Article 136 paragraph 2 contradicts Article 28E paragraph 3 (the right to freedom of association, assembly, and expression), Article 28C paragraph 2 (the right to advance and assert their rights collectively), and Article 28D paragraph 1 (the right to legal certainty and equal treatment before the law). [20] The petitioners also referred to how the concept of freedom of expression is accommodated in liberal and individualistic theories. Considering that the threshold for "obstructing" and "impeding" is not very clear, in the context of the Noorhayati case, this offense appears to be too elastic, which can lead to a domino effect on restricting the rights of individuals, including human rights.…”