Supremacy of Parliament
During the past weeks we have seen two honourable gentlemen lose their office by a parliamentary majority. I am referring to the resignation of former Home Affairs Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici and Malta’s EU envoy Richard Cachia Caruana.
Though both motions presented in Parliament by the opposition were scrutinised and discussed, the reason behind the outcome of the voting is still questionable. Certain members of Parliament have publicly declared they voted for the motion due to personal and partisan reasons.
At this juncture one starts questioning whether it is correct for any motion to be passed in Parliament simply because it attains the majority of the members present. Irrespective of whether what is being discussed is relevant or not to the motion and irrespective of whether what is being said is considered to be factual or not, what counts is whether one votes for or against the motion. In other words, once the vote is taken the decision is final – hence, the supremacy of Parliament.
In Malta, we do not have another Chamber that could approve or bar what has passed in Parliament as, for example, the Upper House or the House of Lords in England.
Once we all agree that Parliament is supreme and whatever is passed in Parliament should stand and be abibed by, then the more we need to scrutinise every person who presents herself/himself for election.
We are all human and bound to make mistakes but realising today how during this legislature disputable and controversial laws have been passed, one has to be more meticulous and cautious before voting for particular individuals. They are the ones who ultimately decide our future as their decision is final.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
13 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
C Muscat
Jun 26th 2012, 08:29
Yes It is right to look on what is in principle the scope of the parliament; I mean should the parliament be the all in one that is legislative executive and administrative. The parliament with the 2 motions against a minister and a member of the foreign office has reduced itself to a dictatorship because it took over the administration of the matters that are only to be guided by the parliament and not pushed.
Alfred Grech
Jun 26th 2012, 00:30
A minority government is always a curse in a country.
Andy Farrugia
Jun 25th 2012, 17:50
Irrespective of the inane blather of Mr Laiviera, I believe it is about time for some Constitutional Law expert to clarify the strange procedures which took place in parliament recently. Again, irrespective of the RCC case, I cannot believe it is correct for Parliament, that is MPs, to act as judge, jury and executioner of civil servants whether top or otherwise. Ministers and PS s can be censored by Parliament, top officials who are political appointees are answerable to the Minister, and thus it is the Minister who should be censored. With regards to career civil servants, I believe that there are appropriate instruments - the public Service Commission - to ensure proper conduct , behaviour and performance. Even then, the individual/s concerned may resort to the law courts to ensure equity and fairness of treatment. Unfortunately, a dangerous precedent has been set and I am surprised that no Constitutionalist has taken this up to explain whether ambassadors and personal aides, for instance, can be "court martialed" in Parliament.
ANTHONY PAVIA
Jun 26th 2012, 19:27
What is stopping you from initiating this case? Talk is cheap.
Andy Farrugia
Jun 27th 2012, 09:09
@ ANTHONY PAVIA
Perhaps in your rush to be funny, you failed to comprehend the gist of my comment...that is, to seek clarification and explanation from Constitutional Law EXPERTS rather than from the "have laptop, will comment" brigade. The latter provide much scope for endless hilarity, but are otherwise inane.
Victor Laiviera
Jun 25th 2012, 15:32
If Mr Azzopardi thinks that the UK's House of Lords can "approve or bar what has passed in Parliament", then he has absolutely no idea of how the system works. The most it can do is delay legislation - slightly.
Victor Laiviera
Jun 25th 2012, 15:27
The bottom line is that Mr Ray Azzopardi does not believe in democracy. Otherwise he would not write canards like "at this juncture one starts questioning whether it is correct for any motion to be passed in parliament simply because it attains the majority of the members present.”
And The Times does him no favours by printing such callow utterances. Unless it was done deliberately to illustrate the level of the debate.
j brincat
Jun 25th 2012, 14:10
Once we all agree that Parliament is supreme and whatever is passed in Parliament should stand and be abided by, then the more we need to scrutinise every person who presents herself/himself for election"
How? Nghadduh mill-pasattur?
Remember we are supposed to live in a democracy!
(jb).
j brincat
Jun 25th 2012, 14:07
"At this juncture one starts questioning whether it is correct for any motion to be passed in Parliament simply because it attains the majority of the members present"
And what do you propose? New principles and practices in democracy 'a la Azzopardi'?
Go and tell it to Erskin!
U hallina!
(jb)
Eddy Privitera
Jun 25th 2012, 12:27
Who should then decide what is factual, relevant or not ???????? The speaker , who is chosen by the government side ???
Mr Duncan Scerri
Jun 25th 2012, 11:29
"At this juncture one starts questioning whether it is correct for any motion to be passed in Parliament simply because it attains the majority of the members present."
Yeah, democracy sucks.
Eddy Privitera
Jun 25th 2012, 10:29
I CAN'T SEE ANYTHING " HONOURABLE " ABOUT A PERSON WHO SAYS THAT HE " ADMIRES " DAPHNE CARUANA GALIZIA FOR WHAT SHE WRITES AND THE WAY SHE WRITES IT !!!
George Calleja
Jun 25th 2012, 16:25
So. according to you, RCC was only ousted because he 'admires' DCC for the way she writes and the way she writes it' I thought it was because of the Wikileakes revelations!
Please choose the reason of your report below: