ADPD has appealed a court ruling that dismissed its constitutional challenge over the allocation of additional parliamentary seats to the two main parties following the 2022 general election.

The constitutional case was raised by ADPD in 2022. It argued that Malta’s electoral laws discriminate against smaller parties, providing for the allocation of extra seats in parliament to reflect proportionality with votes only for parties already represented in parliament. The same provision governs the allocation of gender-balancing seats, further compounding the disadvantage for smaller parties. This was in breach of the constitution and the right for fair elections provided for in the European Convention on Human Rights.  

It has also argued that its suggestions for alternative systems to ensure proportional representation have been ignored.  

The first court had ruled that the constitution could not contradict itself, and because of that, it could not be contested. Furthermore, the court decided that the constitution was not subject to the European Convention on Human Rights. 

In its appeal, filed by lawyer Claire Bonello, ADPD argued that the first court was mistaken when it linked the supremacy of the constitution with the presumption that the constitution was perfect.

This argument was illogical and were it to be accepted it would mean, for example, that the legislator could include clauses in the constitution that breached human rights and no one could challenge them simply because they were in the constitution. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court in a 1996 decision (Paul Stoner vs the prime minister) had found an article in the constitution to be discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional.

The first court was also mistaken when it ruled that the European Convention did not apply to this case. The constitution itself declared that "Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the peace, order and good government of Malta in conformity with full respect for human rights, generally accepted principles of international law and Malta’s international and regional obligations, in particular, those assumed by the treaty of accession to the European Union signed in Athens on the 16th April, 2003"

The Constitutional Court (Vodafone vs the Attorney General) had interpreted this as granting constitutional status to the obligations assumed through the EU treaties.

The party therefore called on the appeals court to annul the decision of the first court.