Carmel Cacopardo

The Republic is getting older, but unfortunately not any wiser. It requires renewal in order to update the Constitutional order. Filling in the constitutional gaps is also essential as is evident in the debate on the desired constitutional changes.

It is pertinent to draw attention once more to the Constitutional Convention which has been on the cards for ages. Various proposals have been made over the years but there has been no practical feedback from the Office of the President of the Republic. The debate goes back to the days when Marie Louise Coleiro-Preca was in the Presidential seat. Her successor George Vella presided over a formal submission of proposals. It was then also stated that the proposals received were being assessed and that a report was being drawn up. We were also promised that it was time for a comprehensive round of constitutional reform, in contrast to the crisis management which has to date regulated Constitutional reform.

Various proposals were submitted. ADPD had then submitted a 38-page document detailing extensive proposals ranging from electoral reform to neutrality, from broadcasting to the appointment of Constitutional authorities.

A specific point made, which should be underlined, is the need to strengthen the role of the President of the Republic as the Guardian of the Constitution. A point which was originally made by President Marie Louise Coleiro-Preca in an interview in this paper (The Malta Independent) almost 7 years ago and subsequently taken up by ADPD.

Our Constitution expects that the President of the Republic shall protect and defend the Constitution of Malta. However, then, our same Constitution fails to provide the President with the required tools in order that this task can be fulfilled. Consequently, to date, the President of the Republic has relied on moral persuasion to carry out this basic duty. However, in this day and age, when we expect much more than a ceremonial Presidency with a rubberstamp, this is certainly insufficient. We expect a Presidency which can act in specific circumstances, even if it has no general executive powers.

The President cannot rely on moral persuasion alone to bring a government in line and respect our Constitution, when such action is required. The President’s office requires legal teeth to be in a position to fulfil its duty of protecting and defending the Constitution of Malta. This begs the question as to the extent to which the President should be actively involved in the local political debate. Sending back legislation to Parliament for its reconsideration would definitely be a very strong political statement. Would a President elected by Parliament in the present political scenario be willing to politically engage with Parliament in this manner? Even if one were to concede that this would be a rare event, it would be logical to conclude that were such an occurrence to happen it would definitely be a highly political and contentious act. The very nature of the Presidency would change drastically. It could also be a change for the better.

This proposal should also be seen in a wider context. ADPD is on record as having proposed, in its various electoral manifestos, that the President of the Republic should be elected by an electoral college that is much wider than Parliament. ADPD is of the opinion that Local Councils should be involved alongside Parliament in the election of the President.

Parliament should not be in control of all the country’s institutions. Involvement of Local Councils in the election of the President of the Republic would serve to increase the dignity of the office of President and would help remove the stigma that this office is some sort of retirement club for old boys and girls.

Establishing such an electoral college would free the President from political dependence on Parliament. Consequently, as a result, the President, would in practice be shielded from political backlash if he/she acts, in defence of the Constitution, by sending back the approved legislation to be reconsidered by Parliament.  

The proposed authority of the President to send back legislation for reconsideration should be limited to such cases where there is an incompatibility between the proposed legislation and the Constitution. It would transform the President’s current moral authority to real and effective authority to block legislation when there is a case to be made that such legislation is unconstitutional. As a result, when the President gives his or her assent to legislation approved by Parliament it would not be simply applying the rubberstamp.

This is an important check on the powers of Parliament that is required in a revised Constitution. The President’s responsibility to defend and protect the Constitution should be real and effective.

Carmel Cacopardo, Deputy Chairperson ADPD-The Green Party

first published in The Malta Independent on Sunday: 14 December 2025

Read more/aqra aktar: https://carmelcacopardo.wordpress.com/