The Malta Association of Professional Engineers is challenging recent amendments to the law regulating the profession which, it claims, were passed through parliament in an “illegal and manifestly anti-constitutional” manner.

The association, representing warranted members of the profession, has long been involved in a legal battle over amendments that, it claimed, would effectively eliminate the status of the professional engineer.

In 2020, MAPE had successfully applied for a warrant of prohibitory injunction, also backed by three elected members on the Engineering Profession Board, in a bid to block the board’s attempt to push the proposed amendments through parliament.

That warrant was upheld and subsequently confirmed by the First Hall, Civil Court in November 2020 by means of a decision whereby Mr Justice Francesco Depasquale observed that when such legislative changes affected “the provision of a service” by a profession, they were to be preceded by a “rigorous consultation process”.

Such consultation served to supply the public with all necessary details as to whether the proposed changes satisfied the so-called “proportionality test” which was called for under an EU directive as well as in terms of Act XXV of 2020. 

Since on that occasion the court had observed a clear lack of “harmony”, it upheld the injunction stating that MAPE would suffer irremediable prejudice if the amendments were to go through without the necessary consultation. 

The court “categorically” ordered the Engineering Profession Board, as the competent body to conduct such public consultation, not to proceed with those amendments before the court determined whether the consultation had been carried out in terms of law.

But the amendments went through nonetheless. 

A first reading of the proposed changes was tabled in Parliament in March 2021, paving the path to the legislative process. 

In July 2021, the amendments were approved without Parliament having abided by the mandatory procedures and provisions in terms of law.

Meanwhile, that injunction and the relative court proceedings are still ongoing.

Now, Arthur Ciantar, as president of MAPE, has filed fresh proceedings before the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, claiming that such behaviour by Parliament is “illegal and manifestly anti-constitutional”.

Both the Constitution as well as jurisprudence bound Parliament to exercise its legislative powers “strictly” within the ambit of statutory procedures.

This fundamental principle safeguards the supremacy of the Constitution and any shortcoming by Parliament in this regard means that the resulting law will be null. 

In this case, the amendments to the engineering law were not subjected to a valid and mandatory consultation process before being discussed in Parliament.

Moreover, Parliament was faced with a “legitimate hurdle”, namely the warrant of prohibitory injunction upheld by the court, which, under the system of separation of powers, exercised equal authority as Parliament.

Consequently, MAPE was requesting the court to annul the amendments, impose a fixed time limit for Parliament to abide by the court’s ruling and provide any other adequate remedy. 

The application was filed against the state advocate, the prime minister, the permanent secretary at OPM, minister Ian Borg, the permanent secretary at the capital projects ministry and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Lawyers Austin Bencini and Daniel Buttigieg signed the application.