The new IVF law has presented a clear example of how wrong some people are when they argue the office of the president is purely ceremonial.
The reform, which Labour had pledged would become law in its first 100 days, could not come into force for three weeks because President George Vella failed to sign it.
The constitution lays down that the president must give his assent to legislation approved by parliament and brought to his attention “without delay”.
Yet, it was the new acting president, Frank Bezzina, who only signed it yesterday when Vella went abroad, after amendments to the IVF law were approved on July 6 by parliament with 66 votes in favour and three against.
It is unclear whether the law approved by parliament was “presented to the president for assent”. Aware of Vella’s mindset, the government may have opted to bide time not to embarrass the presidency. So it may be premature to accuse him of breaching the constitution. Still, his behaviour justifiably ruffled feathers.
The three Nationalist MPs who, like the president, have issues with the new law, stood up to be counted, even going against their party’s instructions and exposing themselves to possible disciplinary action.
However, the president refused to come clean about the matter and kept insisting the law would be signed by his office. When pressed during a radio programme a few days ago to be more categoric about his stand, Vella would not even say whether he or the acting president would sign the law, adding: “The important thing is that it is signed”.
Indeed, democracy demands that a law approved by parliament through the correct procedure – as Vella acknowledged was the case with the IVF law – receives presidential endorsement. However, the people also expect – indeed, have a right – to know why their president has reservations about a law, especially one as sensitive and controversial as this.
Only last December, amid a national debate on the cannabis reform, Vella declared the president does not have the power to ignore a law passed democratically by parliament. To us, the people, the president is, of course, Vella, not his stand-in.
“My duty,” he had said in his inaugural address, “is to preserve the constitution and see that it is respected.” That is precisely why he is duty-bound to take the people into his confidence and put all his cards on the table.
If he has objections to the IVF law over its moral and ethical implications, he can only win public admiration by sticking to his principles. It is, after all, as he solemnly declared the day he was sworn in as president, the “respect for ethical, moral and social values that elevates the dignity of, and respect towards, the individual in our societies”.
Furthermore, it creates uncertainty when the president, who is vested with the executive authority of the country, is uncomfortable with a law that made it to the statute book on his watch.
What if, for the sake of argument, the IVF law needs amending during his tenure? What if the cabinet recommends that a person facing prosecution under this law be granted a presidential pardon?
If Vella has difficulty accepting the IVF law, he should clearly say so and then follow the correct procedure.
In his own words: “Nowhere in our constitution does it state that the president can decide whether he agrees or not [with a law]. This makes absolutely no sense.” Otherwise, it could trigger instability and a political crisis, as he himself had pointed out just eight months ago.