The Curia's Environment Commission and the Ombudsman are defending the planning authority's audit officer Joseph Falzon who is under fire for comments he made on two development cases.

The commission said the recent public criticism of Mr Falzon's work was "inappropriate" and promoted a culture of omertà (code of silence) that kept back the truth.

The Ombudsman said he understood the unfortunate situation Mr Falzon faced because it was still unregulated: "These officers should, in the exercise of their functions, enjoy the same institutional protection and have the same powers and duties the Ombudsman has."

Last week, Mr Falzon's actions came under fire from two fronts: by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, who accused him of jumping to conclusions in comments he made about a court judgment on the controversial Mistra case, and by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority in connection with what Mr Falzon said regarding a permit for apartments in Qala. In an article that appeared on The Times last week, Mr Falzon said he was considering resigning because he could not continue working in such a "hostile environment".

Without mentioning any names, the Church commission said it was a grave mistake and very immature to criticise the auditor's office "simply because we don't like what he says... even when we might think we are right on a legal point".

The commission praised the auditor's work over the years saying he acted with great integrity and courage, serving as Mepa's conscience.

It condemned any "irresponsible" attempts to gain political advantage from the situation. It did not elaborate. The commission reminded Mr Falzon that he should expect criticism - good or not - because of the wide-ranging implications behind Mepa's decisions.

Mepa lashed out at its auditor over a report probing a development permit in Qala, saying he should never even have investigated or published the report because the matter was still before the appeals' board. It said Mr Falzon's actions contradicted the Ombudsman decision, a higher institution.

However, Ombudsman Joseph Said Pullicino said Mepa's statement was not correct. Since Mr Falzon was a Mepa employee, he did not have "any institutional relationship with the Ombudsman who, therefore, is not empowered to directly influence, verify or control his actions or decisions".

Plus, Mepa's statement that the Ombudsman office was "a higher institution" was not precise because it was autonomous. It was also incorrect to say that in the past the Ombudsman had warned Mr Falzon not to investigate planning cases that were sub judice.

In 2006, on Mepa's request, the Ombudsman had told Mr Falzon that publishing a report on the recycling plant in Marsascala would prejudice the pending appeal. Mr Falzon had complied.

Yesterday, Dr Said Pullicino said he had advised Mr Falzon to suspend the investigation that was "correctly adopted". That advice was valid in 2006 and remained valid today, he said.

The Ombudsman said he also understood Mr Falzon's concern that construction could still go ahead even when the case was still sub judice and before the appeals' board. "This anomaly could seriously and irremediably prejudice the rights of interested parties as well as of society in general and should be addressed in the (Mepa) reform."

In reply, Mepa said it respected the commission's opinion and reiterated that Mr Falzon chose to ignore or omit a number of issues in his final report on the Qala development, even though the authority gave a detailed explanation and planning reasons behind the permit.

Mepa said it noted that Dr Said Pullicino repeated his advice to suspend investigations and publications of Mr Falzon's findings when planning cases were sub judice.