Skip to main content

The President's abrogated duty



Due to the highly ceremonial role it occupies, we tend to see the President as simply a figurehead with no functional duties except for fund-raising, and forget that there are a few but very important responsibilities assigned by our Constitution and our Laws on the officeholder.

One of which is the leading role the President as Head of State occupies when an abrogative referendum is called by the people.

Our Parliament in 1996 included a major civil right by allowing the people themselves to ask for a particular legislation to be put to vote through a referendum, a referendum which bypasses both Parliament and Government and which has the power to abrogate that particular law through a majority vote, given that 50% of the electorate cast a valid vote.

The whole point of this right is that it allows the people to take matters into their own hands when they feel that Parliament and Government have not acted according to what they want.

The law makes it clear that since political parties and elected representatives are being bypassed, the people are directly asking the Head of State themselves to abrogate that particular law, and the matter lies solely between the people and the President.

It therefore makes it clear in article 18 (2) of the Referenda Act (Ch 237) that:
"Where the Constitutional Court has decided that a referendum may be held, the President shall fix a day for it, being a date not earlier than three months and not later than six months after the copy of the decision of the Constitutional Court shall have been delivered to the President in accordance with subarticle (1), and the President shall issue a writ in accordance with this Act accordingly."

It was therefore expected that once the verdict of the Constitutional Court was delivered, the Office of the President would have been issuing a release declaring the date set for voting.

Instead, we were faced with pompous Joseph Muscat once again interfering in matters where he should not, deciding a date to serve his political purposes and telling his flock how he wants them to vote.

And where is our Head of State, to whom the signatories made their call? These are the occasions by which we can judge if a President has risen up to his or her role, and not by how much money she manages to collect in l-Istrina. Unfortunately she has utterly failed the test. Because the President's primary role is as guardian of the Constitution and upholder of our laws, and not as chief fundraiser, which noble as may be the cause, is just a side-effect and not the main reason of what her office is there for.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I am dropping out of the Anti-ACTA protest

Like many avid internet users, I have followed with interest the debate about ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement). After reading numerous articles, watched sensational videos, and discussed ad nauseam with friends, I have realized that what I have come across is a campaign hi-jacked by lies, myths and misconceptions as to rival Malta's misinformed divorce referendum campaign. I have to say that the videos on Youtube   got me worried. I quickly signed the petition, joined the Anti-ACTA groups, and prepared myself for a full-blown fight against the big-governments who want to intrude on our privacy and freedom of expression. Like our MEP Edward Scicluna invited us to do in the University debate last Wednesday, I did not try to understand the details of ACTA but rather saw who the players behind it were. But as usual, my logical instincts took over, and his call to not try to understand ACTA actually pushed me to read the text. And here's what I now know: ACTA is ...

Who's the real monster?

I usually hate comparisons, but some very different reactions from the 'great unthinking' rabble do merit some analysis. In May this year, the notorious dog Star was found buried alive . A prima facie , this looked liked the most horrific case of animal cruelty, and is still considered so by some. The perpetrator was described by the sensitive and caring animal-lovers as a villain, a heartless monster, deserving of death, stoning, or even to be 'buried alive in the same manner'. But what did Mr. Vella actually do, according to the testimony heard in Court? Star was sick. It was shedding fur, and quite old already, and its owner did not afford the treatment. In trying to save some money from paying for the dog to be put to sleep and killed properly by vets, she gave it to Mr. Vella to have it killed himself. Nothing much to make people angry till now. Mercy-killing of very sick and suffering animals is widely done and usually a...

The Church and its riches

The above pictures has lately been doing rounds on facebook. Posted comments refer to injustice, hypocrisy, and of the Church not practising what it preaches. It seems it has become a common trend to blame the Church for everything under the sun. Hitting at the Church is the new way of looking cool. But before joining the bandwagon of shares, likes and comments, let me try to analyze the points this photo is trying to make. The first one: the Church is immensely rich. Well, it could be, but what do most of these riches constitute? Most of the Church's "riches" are fixed immovable assets, of which most are important human heritage. They can practically never be sold. Let's just say that the Pope sells all his adornments (provided anyone wants to buy them), maybe even Michelangelo's Pieta, and once we're at it , yes, maybe he should also sell the Sistine Chapel and have it converted to apartments. Then what? Apart from making UNESCO and the rest of human...