It was important to analyse the situation brought about by the introduction of divorce to be able to fine-tune marital and divorce legislation and fortify the institution of marriage.

There have been 1,200 applications for divorce since the Act came into force two years ago, Nationalist MP Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici told Parliament on Wednesday.

However, he said a new situation had developed: the number of civil annulment cases had decreased, with only 23 being registered last year.

On the other hand the number of ecclesiastical annulments remained the same as in previous years, with a total of 84 cases last year.

Meanwhile, the volume of separation cases remained constant with between 1,000 and 1,200 cases every year.

Speaking during the debate in second reading of the Marriage Bill, Dr Mifsud Bonnici said the figures showed that people still valued ecclesiastical annulments and that the government needed to continue giving importance to this sector.

He urged the government to find ways to help the Catholic Church process its annulment cases faster.

The Ecclesiastical Tribunal had in turn taken measures to address the backlog of cases but one had to acknowledge that it had its limitations.

The Bill would introduce an amendment which would help improve civil annulment cases but one had to keep in mind that these cases would now continue to decrease since more people were opting for divorce. This reduced the significance of this Bill.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici said he believed that the previous PN government had been intelligent in acknowledging the Church’s annulment process.

Once an annulment was given, this was registered by the State without the need of further court procedures to the benefit of both the State and the couple concerned. Yet, the distinction between the State and the Church was still kept since couples could decide to apply for a civil annulment if they so desired.

It was important to analyse the situation brought about by the introduction of divorce to be able to fine-tune marital and divorce legislation and fortify the institution of marriage.

Parliamentary Secretary for Competitiveness and Economic Growth Edward Zammit Lewis disagreed with Dr Mifsud Bonnici on the significance of the amendment, saying it was important and put into effect another Labour electoral promise on civil liberties.

He spoke of the chronology of events regarding this Act, with the introduction of civil marriage and the recognition of divorce decisions delivered abroad in 1975 under a Labour administration.

He said this was a breakthrough because it established, for the first time, a clear separation between State and Church. Before that date, marriages in Malta could only be contracted under canonical law.

In 1993, the PN government had signed a protocol with the Holy See which gave prevalence to the ecclesiastical tribunal over the civil court in matters of annulment of marriages.

This, said Dr Zammit Lewis, led to a lot of abuse and injustices. It was now being repealed and this had been long overdue, at least since Malta’s entry into the European Union.

Then, the country accepted all rights and obligations under European law. This was also proof of how progressive the Labour government had been in 1975.

A second additional protocol was signed in 1995 under which annulment decisions by the Church could be registered in the court of appeal and given civil effect under the Marriage Act.

He said this led to abuse because procedure in the ecclesiastical tribunal was totally different from that applied in the civil court. It led to a lot of injustice and had nothing to do with safeguarding families.

Dr Zammit Lewis said that financial pressures on families were removed by tackling precarious work, reducing energy bills and providing more sustainability to vulnerable families and children.

He said that while ecclesiastical decisions could be registered in the court of appeal, this gave the discretion to the State court to check whether the Church tribunal respected the principles of natural justice and equality of arms for these decisions to have a civil effect. The debate continues.