Updated | Opposition's motion defeated

The Opposition's motion requesting a revision of the Speaker's ruling that found Simon Busuttil in prima facie breach of privilege was defeated in parliament.

The motion was defeated with 35 votes against and 25 votes in favour.

After a relatively quiet discussion, which saw interventions by a number of government and opposition MPs, the atmosphere turned fiery when the Prime Minister and the Opposition leader took the floor.

READ a summary of the leaders' interventions here

In the absence of Speaker Anglu Farrugia who is abroad on official duties, deputy speaker Censu Galea chaired the debate.

Farrugia had ruled that there had been a breach of privilege after Busuttil said that Commissioner of Police Peter Paul Zammit had unilaterally declared there were no charges to be pressed against former European Commissioner John Dalli, under influence of the Prime Minister or the Labour government.

Farrugia's ruling was given after the Prime Minister that Busuttil substantiate his allegation, or retract his comments. According to the Standing Orders, MPs cannot attribute a "bad motive" to members of the House, and any MP accused of using "objectionable words" and not retracting or offering apologies, can be censured.

Standing Orders give MPs two days to demand a revision of a ruling and the Nationalist Opposition last Wednesday presented the parliamentary motion asking for the review.

The motion was presented by deputy leader for parliamentary affairs Mario de Marco. He argued that with the ruling, Busuttil was being stopped from making an expression of a political opinion or reach a political conclusion.

"Our motion is asking for each and every MP's right to express themselves, to be safeguarded," de Marco said.

He also said that Muscat's request for a ruling was an exercise in restriction of MPs' freedom of expression that could have a "detrimental effect on democracy".

In its motion, the Opposition held that the Prime Minister's request for a ruling equated to an attempt to "censure the right to freedom of political expression and consequently undermine parliamentary democracy."

The Opposition motion also noted that the Speaker's ruling - in "prima facie breach of privilege," - did not mean or imply that Busuttil was guilty or innocent as stipulated by Article 11(1) of the House of Representatives (Privileges and Powers) Ordinance.

This article holds that "the term "prima facie" shall mean that a complaint raised alleges a breach of a rule set out in this Ordinance or in the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives or any resolution approved by the House of Representatives in relation to the acts referred to in the said subarticle (4), and shall in no case mean or imply an expression of guilt or innocence."