Article 2 of our Constitution states:

(1) The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion.

(2) The authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church have the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong.

(3) Etc.

Divorce goes against the tenets of the Catholic Church. So, to say the least, the introduction of divorce legislation by the state is inconsistent with its own principles as embodied in article 2 of the Constitution.

Furthermore article 116 of the Constitution states:

“A right of action for a declaration that any law is invalid on any grounds other than inconsistency with the provisions of articles 33 to 45 of this Constitution shall appertain to all persons without distinction and a person bringing such an action shall not be required to show any personal interest in support of his action.”

The italics in article 116 as quoted are mine. This excepting clause in italics sanctions the right of action for invalidity of any law on the grounds of inconsistency with other provisions of the Constitution barring the mentioned articles.

This raises the point whether the introduction of legislation against the principles of the Catholic Church constitutes an inconsistency with provisions of the Constitution, in this case article 2.

If so, it would follow that unless article 2 is added to “articles 33 to 45” as mentioned in article 116 there could be a case for invalidity of such legislation.