If two spouses filed annulment proceedings before the civil courts and the tribunal, the civil courts had to put off the proceedings until the proceedings before the tribunal were terminated.

Parliamentary Secretary Owen Bonnici yesterday told Parliament that the Marriage Bill would solve the grave injustices suffered by couples for several years with regard to marriage annulment proceedings.

Opposition spokesman Beppe Fenech Adami agreed and said these couples deserved an apology.

Introducing the debate in second reading, Dr Bonnici said that the Labour government kept its electoral promise to renegotiate the agreement with the Holy See on the effectiveness of decisions by the Ecclesiastical Tribunal.

On February 3,1993, an accord between Malta and the Holy See provided that the Ecclesiastical Tribunal was to be supreme over Maltese civil courts with respect to annulment proceedings.

Consequently, if two spouses filed annulment proceedings before the civil courts and the Tribunal, the civil courts had to put off the proceedings until the proceedings before the Tribunal were terminated. This was a bad principle in itself as it was not in line with the separation of State and Church, Dr Bonnici said.

This was a bad principle in itself as it was not in line with the separation of State and Church

In normal circumstances, annulment proceedings before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal were lengthier and required two pronouncements for one to obtain an annulment. This was a necessary measure since Catholic people believed that marriage was a sacrament and not only a contract.

However, this should not prohibit a person from obtaining a civil annulment without waiting for the Tribunal to conclude its proceedings.

Dr Bonnici noted that in the past, where civil proceedings for annulment had reached the final stages, the other spouse instituted annulment proceedings before the Tribunal to freeze proceedings before the civil courts out of spite. “This was unjust,” he said.

Explaining the practical advantages of the recent agreement with the Holy See, Dr Bonnici said that a party would be able to institute annulment proceedings before the civil courts even if the other party has instituted annulment proceedings before the Tribunal. Upon the pronouncement of the civil courts that a marriage was annulled, the marriage would be annulled for all civil effects irrespective of the fact that a similar action was filed before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal.

In exceptional cases where proceedings before the Tribunal ended before proceedings in front of the civil courts (unconsumed marriages and marriages between spouses of different religious beliefs that did not adhere to canon law formalities) the decision of the Tribunal would produce civil effects if the Court of Appeal was ensured that the rules of natural justice were respected by the Tribunal.

The fact that the Ecclesiastical Tribunal would have declared a marriage to be valid would not prohibit a party from instituting civil proceedings for annulment on the same grounds.

Dr Bonnici said that Catholic doctrine provided limited grounds for annulment while the grounds for a civil annulment were wider. Judges always interpreted the relevant provisions of the law widely. While immaturity was not a sufficient ground for a Catholic annulment, it constituted a ground for annulment in civil proceedings.

Dr Bonnici said that with this Bill, the government affirmed that a democratic country should have separation between the State and the Church. This was another civil right that was being implemented by the government after having reached an agreement with the Church.

Earlier, Dr Bonnici said that while some might argue that this issue was no longer important because divorce legislation was in place, the two were different. Divorce terminated marital life while annulment revoked the marriage contract as if it was never contracted owing to a defect.

Certain people, who contracted marriage as a result of fraudulent acts practised by the other party, might seek to obtain the annulment of the marriage and not merely its termination.

Dr Bonnici said that several people instituted annulment proceedings before the Tribunal after having obtained a declaration of annulment by the civil courts, owing to the lengthy proceedings before the Tribunal. However, this required the consent of both parties.

The Holy See representatives understood the situation during meetings with Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and Foreign Minister George Vella. A high level of cooperation was shown by Mgr Charles Scicluna, who was also a lawyer, and by Gozo Bishop Mario Grech, who was also a lecturer in Canon law.

Both understood that the situation was unjust and that the agreement between the Republic of Malta and the Holy See had to be amended. His Excellency Apostolic Nuncio Aldo Cavalli signed the agreement with great serenity.

While immaturity was not a sufficient ground for a Catholic annulment, it constituted a ground for annulment in civil proceedings

Dr Bonnici clarified that although there should be a distinction between the Church and the State, it was important to recognise that the Church still needed to be a partner of the State. A lot of work was being done by the Church in the social, educational and cultural sectors and Europe wouldn’t be what it was today had Catholicism not existed.

Apart from Dr Fenech Adami, Minister George Vella and Claudette Buttigieg also contributed to the debate. They will be reported tomorrow.

At the beginning of yesterday’s sitting, the House read for the first time the Various Laws (Criminal Matters) Bill, the Children (Care Orders) Bill and the Care Orders Standards Authority Bill.

The House will today debate the Opposition’s motion on the Individual Investor Programme.