The Court has no limitation on what can or cannot be cited in the course of making an argument, provided that what is being cited is relevant to the legal argument being made. To that extent, it is irrelevant whether a certain decision or action is precedential or not, since it can still be relevant to an argument, if anything, as contextual information.

More to the point, each case is unique, with its own particular circumstances and details, so a determination of justiciability or non-justiciability should not necessarily be seen as precedential. The case of in-chambers opinions is particular, since it involves a more extensive document that does offer some legal reasoning on the part of the Court. Those do have some interpretative value, but only insofar as the Court made an initial and relatively superficial reading of the law. That interpretation could very well change, if it was subjected to a challenge via a legal question. In that sense, in-chambers opinions have certain precedential value, but not to the same level as a ruling with a HCLQ, HCRR or HCCC case number.

In short, nothing prevents anyone from quoting anything in the course of making a legal argument. Its value as precedent, or lack thereof, is no impediment for that. However, in-chambers opinions do hold some precedential value, albeit lower than that of case rulings, by virtue of being superficial interpretations of the law.