PN's extra two seats to stay after Constitutional Court ruling

Three judges of the Constitutional Court have dismissed a case filed by the Labour Party (PL) against the Electoral Commission and the Nationalist Party (PN) over the allocation of two extra seats to the opposition in parliament.

The decision handed down this afternoon by Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri, Judge Giannino Caruana Demajo and Judge Noel Cuschieri, began by explaining the issue it had to decide – that of whether there were two minority parties in Parliament or one.

The PL argued that Marlene Farrugia as party leader and elected MP for the PD was distinct from the PN, while the PN argued that there was only one party in opposition.

In yesterday's sitting, both parties had argued back and forth, on the basis of the PN statute. But the court pointed out today that “what counts for the purposes of the law is not the PN statute but the Constitution and electoral law.” It had been shown conclusive evidence that Farrugia was a PN candidate and had been elected in the interests of that party.

Constitutional Court has rejected Labour's attempt to deprive @PNmalta of 2 seats in Parliament. Justice has prevailed.

— Simon Busuttil (@SimonBusuttil) June 16, 2017

“It may well be that [Marlene] Farrugia was appointed as a PN candidate...in violation of the party's statute, but that statute does not overrule what is laid down in the law and the Constitution.”

The court observed that there was nothing in the law preventing Farrugia from contesting the elections under the banner of a party other than the one she led, as long as the parties had agreed to do so.

“What matters is not which party she is a member of, but the interests of which party she proffered her candidature for and was elected.”

The list of candidates submitted by the parties to the Electoral Commission was the “conclusive evidence” of which party they were representing, said the court, also noting that agreement between the PN and the PD whereby the parties would have separate disciplinary jurisdiction over their candidates.

Although both parties had been autonomous in their choice of candidates and had separate disciplinary regimes, this did not mean that MPs elected by one party in a coalition could not be taken as not acting in the interest of the coalition partner.

“It is the opinion of the court that the Commission's decision was correct and, had it decided the issue any other way, it would have acted against the wishes of the voters who cast their ballot for [Marlene] Farrugia, with their mind at rest that they had not wasted their vote.”

Lawyers Paul Borg Olivier and Karol Aquilina appeared for the PN in these proceedings. Lawyers Pawlu Lia and Phyllis Aquilina represented the PL.

Lawyer Patrick Valentino followed the proceedings as on behalf of the PD, which was not admitted as a party to the case. Prof. Ian Refalo represented the Electoral Commission.