The debate on whether constitutional supremacy is a given remains a contentious issue. An esteemed scholar and a close friend, Dr. John Stanton, has restated his position in a recent work named “In Search of Constitutional Supremacy in Malta.”
Stanton holds a strong belief that permitting any attempts, including those in the future, to alter the supremacy clause is dangerous. Stanton references Chan Sek Keong, who, in reference to the Constitution of Singapore, asserts, “[i]f the supremacy of the Singapore Constitution or its basic structure could be obliterated by a legitimate constitutional amendment… then the concept of constitutional supremacy loses its meaning, as Parliament effectively becomes supreme.”
From my perspective, I maintain a sense of skepticism about this approach. The reason for my skepticism lies in the fact that entrenching any unchangeable legal provision, not least constitutional dispositions, would elevate the current generation as the ultimate authority to which all future generations must adhere. Essentially, this would erode the concept of political sovereignty and hinder the potential for future generations, whose perspectives may differ from our current beliefs, to explore alternative political solutions.
From my standpoint, such a scenario seems incomprehensible.
Indeed, it’s already quite a daunting task to envision certain constitutional provisions becoming virtually unchangeable notwithstanding the absence of effective deadlock resolution mechanisms, given the need for a two-thirds majority in the legislature for any modifications.
