‘Outdated’ Constitution doesn’t guarantee minimum wage

Malta's Constitution is not giving its citizens the rights they deserve, but merely enunciating 'principles', according to the University of Malta's professor of history of law Raymond Mangion.

In a speech for law graduates earlier this week, Mangion complained about the "archaic" language of the 1964 Independence Constitution, and how several of its alleged rights could be easily removed by an absolute majority in the House of Representatives.

He took the opportunity to tell MPs to "roll up their sleeves" and carry out a "badly needed" overhaul of the Constitution.

Mangion pointed out how the social and economic rights outlined in the Constitution, do not even mention the right to a minimum wage for workers. "Despite calls by trade unions for the law to guarantee a respectable wage rate, the Constitution gives the impression that it is not familiar with the concept."

Law professor Mangion said that despite legislation increasing the compulsory educational age to 16, the Constitution had yet to acknowledge this advancement.

He said that if MPs did not strengthen the Constitution, citizens' rights would be trampled upon, adding that the constitutional provisions were in themselves "limited and indirect rights".

"The Constitution is treating social, economical and cultural rights - amongst which are the right of work, terms of employment, minimum wage limitations and education - merely as principles not rights.

"This is compounded by the fact that such rights are not enforceable by the courts and the state is in no way legally bound to implement them, but conversely, the parliament can repeal them by absolute majority."

Mangion said this was "the last nail in the coffin" depreciating citizens' rights by not equating them to those fundamental human rights that cannot be repealed, and which are themselves enforceable in any court in Malta.

Outlining this distinction between "human rights" and "citizens' rights", Mangion said it was evident that the rights of a person as a citizen should be treated better. Mangion in fact pointed out that while people's human rights created an obligation upon the state to guarantee them, the same could not be said about these "citizens' rights".

"These rights are treated from the state's perspective, towards the citizen; rather than the other way round, because it does not mention the state's responsibility to the citizens."

He also complained that the law still uses a language and terminology belonging to 1964, representing the social rights of citizens differently from their rights as a human being.

He applied the same reasoning to health and safety laws. "Although health tops the citizenry's interests... the Constitution is silent about the implementation of health and safety laws."

Mangion pointed out that the Constitution had yet to even make reference to the advances of the last 50 years where healthcare was being provided for free and equally accessible to everyone as a right.

He also said MPs had to amend the Constitution to ensure equal social and economic rights for homosexuals. "Just as Parliament eliminated all forms of discrimination between men and women, the law should how ensure that those of a diverse sexual orientation enjoy equal rights as heterosexuals."