Op-ed: Decisions of Malta's constitutional court have little legislative impact

In the hierarchy of Maltese law, the constitution of Malta reigns supreme. Article 6, colloquially known as “The Supremacy Clause” lays down that if any other law is inconsistent with the constitution, the constitution shall prevail and the other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. Thus, the constitution sets out a statement of its own supremacy, separating itself from “any other” law, and therefore, by implication, from any ordinary law. Any other law, be it an act, code or subsidiary legislation (to name a few examples) is a legal subordinate of the constitution.   It is, therefore, no surprise that the highest court in the Maltese judiciary is the Constitutional Court as established through article 95(2) of the constitution. The interpretation as to whether a law is inconsistent with the constitution falls within the jurisdiction of this court, particularly by virtue of sub-articles 95(2)(d)-(f). This court is akin to an appellate court, whereby aggrieved parties may seek constitutional redress when they are of the belief that a specific law is inconsistent with the constitution. If the court is satisfied with the arguments put forward, it may find a law unconstitutional.   At face value, when one understands the categorical wording used in article 6, coupled with the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, the process seems relatively streamlined. However, even if the court finds a law unconstitutional, this does not automatically mean that the law in question is revoked. 
Read the full article here: Times of Malta