If you are for the people you would not use your one-seat advantage in parliament to turn the vise on them. That's tyrannical. The constitution is the law of the land and parliament must respect it too. The Chief Justice is now defending the constitution from a PNC/AFC onslaught. 

You mean the Burnham Constitution.

Ramjattan said

the Speaker is the authority of the House and

would have allowed the cutting of the budget

based on the vote of the majority of the House;

which happens to be the opposition,

representing the majority of citizens in the country.

It is therefore their belief that while the CJ is claiming

that the Standing Orders are not laws of Guyana,

it is the rules of Parliament.

Ramjattan believes that

Chang may have erred in his ruling because

the National Assembly,

especially the Committee of Supply,

has the power in any Westminster type democracy

to amend budgetary allocations and estimates.

“That’s why in the Committee of Supply we do what we do,

which is, the line item has to be approved and voted on.

What we are merely doing,

if we were to take it to its logical conclusion;

we would simply be a rubber stamp of the Executive

and so there is no check and balance

in relation to budgetary allocations.”

Emile Grifin: The power to amend may involve the power to approve. But a power to approve does not imply a power to amend!
What utter baloney! Can you imagine this is what our Chief Justice wrote in his final opinion-based ruling? The Budget is a Law, folks, and since the House makes laws and amends laws, why can't the House amend the Budget? The Chief Justice cannot cherry pick which law the House can amend!
Besides, the House is governed by Standing Orders, and one Standing Order (76)  gives the House the authority to amend Estimates, so unless the Chief Justice can cite another Standing Order or constitutional law that overrides the authority to amend Estimates, he is erring based on an opinion that is not based on case law.
Whether the combined opposition will appeal the fallacious ruling is not clear, but on further reading of the Chief Justice's opinion-based ruling, an appeal may not even be necessary. He actually opined that the opposition can literally VOTE DOWN a line item, as opposed to CUTTING it.

Major f  up here Jailal.