No 'independent space to operate'
The second controversial area of change are the courts and judiciary.
Under the amendment a new Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) will be created which will determine constitutional questions. The FCC's first chief justice and the judges that serve in it will be appointed by the president.
"It forever changes the shape and the nature of the right to a fair trial," says Ms Jahangir.
"The influence of the executive has increased not just in appointing judges but also constitutional benches. When the state is dictating the constitution of those benches then what hope do I have as a litigant of getting a fair trial?"
Arifa Noor, journalist and commentator, says: "The judiciary is now quite subservient to the executive.
"The general consensus seems to be that the judiciary is now going to not really have any independent space to operate for the moment."
Before this amendment was passed, the Supreme Court would hear and decide on constitutional cases. Some said this created a backlog of criminal and civil cases waiting to be heard as judges had to listen to constitutional arguments as well, arguing that separating the two has helped smooth the court process.
That has some traction with some lawyers, although Salahuddin Ahmed, a Karachi-based lawyer in the Supreme Court, sees that argument as disingenuous. He points out that the majority of cases pending in Pakistan are not in the Supreme Court.
"Statistically, if you were genuinely worried about making litigation quicker, you would focus on reforms for those cases."
In the hours after the amendment was signed into law, two Supreme Court justices handed in their resignations.
"The constitution that I swore an oath to uphold and defend is no more," said Justice Athar Minallah in his resignation letter.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that the judiciary had been brought under the control of the government and that the 27th amendment had "torn the Supreme Court to pieces".
Khawaja Asif, the defence minister, said of the resignations "their conscience has awakened because their monopoly on the Supreme Court has been curbed and Parliament has tried to prove the supremacy of the Constitution".
Judges can also now be transferred to different courts without their consent. If they don't agree to the transfer, judges can appeal to the judicial commission and if their reasons for not moving are found invalid the judge would have to retire.
Those in favour argue that this will ensure that courts in all areas of the country can be staffed, but some are worried it will be used as a threat.
"To pick a judge up from the province where he's been serving and take him to a different high court is something that will place them under further pressure to toe the government's line," says Mr Ahmed. He worries that the change will upset the balance in Pakistan.
"[Our judiciary] has collaborated with dictators in the past, but they've also sometimes nudged the executive. I think if you completely rob people of that hope, then that sends them into other, much uglier directions."
Mr Kugelman agrees: "Bottled-up grievances don't bode well for social stability."
"It does indicate a slide towards authoritarianism," says Ms Noor, adding that she sees the latest amendment as building on the 26th amendment, made last year, which gave lawmakers the power to pick Pakistan's top judge. There is already speculation of a 28th.
"It indicates that the balance of power is tilted in favour, heavily tilted in favour, of the establishment."
Critics say the move, which entrenches the military's hold on power, paves the way toward autocracy.
www.bbc.com
