President Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca was criticised by many individuals last week for having signed the IVF Bill when she did not agree with its contents. Yet it seems that most of this criticism was unfair, and based mostly on a lack of knowledge about the constitutional role of the President.

In a strongly-worded statement, the President made it amply clear that she disagreed with the Bill, which has ushered in the concept of embryo freezing and embryo donation.

She explained that, the fact that she had signed the bill in no way compromised her firm views that life should be protected from the moment of conception. “Never should any human being, including embryos, be treated as an object or intentionally put at risk,” she said, adding that the country’s “moral fibre is at risk of disintegrating if we disrespect human life at any stage of development.”

Many said that, given how strongly she felt about these amendments, the President should not have signed the Bill - if need be, she should have resigned.

But as the Dean of the Faculty of Law, Professor Kevin Aquilina, explained to this newspaper, the President acted correctly and in line with her constitutional duties.

The Office of the President is bound to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. That constitution requires her to sign the Bills approved by Parliament without delay. This she did, also acting upon advice from the Attorney General, who confirmed that the amendments did not breach the constitution.

Aquilina explained that had the unelected President refused to sign a Bill that was approved by a democratically elected Parliament, this would have constituted a “grave breach of the democratic process.”It would also have placed her at loggerheads with Parliament.

There were a number of other options the President could have taken. She could have resigned. She could have gone abroad, absenting herself, passing the matter onto the acting President. She could have just signed the bill and stayed quiet, she could have signed the bill and explained herself (the option chosen) and she could have resigned and explained herself.

The options of resignation and absenteeism would have been unfair, because by choosing them, the President would have only been running away from her responsibilities and passing the buck.

Besides, the President, a former social solidarity minister, was surely aware when she was nominated for the role she holds today that this day would arrive. Granted, the Labour Party in its manifestos never specifically mentioned embryo freezing or surrogacy (which is now to be presented in a separate bill at a later stage), but it was quite obvious that things were moving in this direction.

One also has to consider that, had she taken the option of refusing to sign the Bill, the President, while appeasing those who like her are against the amendments, would have alienated those who agree.

Instead, she acted upon the legal advice given to her, and in line with her constitutional duties, and signed the bill, while at the same time expressing her personal views of disagreement.

The fact of the matter is that if there is a problem, it is in the way the President’s office is structured. Maybe the time has come to revisit the constitution and grant the Office of the President greater powers.

Professor Aquilina suggested that the President should be given the power to appoint the members of the Constitutional Commissions and the Broadcasting Authority, following due consultation, including with a purposely appointed Council of State.

He pointed out that these authorities and commissions today only represent the interest of the party in power, rather than the national interest.

However, for such a change to take place, the political parties would first have to agree to relinquish their control over these authorities, something that does not seem very likely to happen.