Loh had been detained by the Royal Malaysian Police under a warrant issued under the provisions of the Restricted Residence Enactment 1933 (RRE).
[4]The case has been criticised by legal scholars, who have argued that it effectively gave the government free rein to pass unconstitutional laws.
One part of Raja Azlan Shah's judgement, which stated that "the individual has certain fundamental rights upon which not even the power of the State may encroach" was subjected to criticism for "hardly (holding) substance" in light of certain legislation, such as the RRE and the Internal Security Act (ISA), that allegedly encroach on human rights.
[6]The decision concerning the "basic structure" of the Constitution in Loh was reaffirmed in the 1980 case of Phang Chin Hock v. Public Prosecutor.
In Phang, the case was heard by Lord President Tun Mohd Suffian Hashim, Justice Wan Sulaiman, and Justice Syed Othman, who unanimously agreed, in the words of Lord President Suffian: For the purpose of this appeal it is enough for us merely to say that Parliament may amend the Constitution in any way they think fit, provided they comply with all the conditions precedent and subsequent regarding manner and form prescribed by the Constitution itself.