PCP accuses Portuguese extreme right of unconstitutional coup in the legislature

In an opinion piece published on June 5 in the newspaper Publicthe jurist and member of the Central Committee of the Portuguese Communist Party, António Filipe Rodrigues, launches a severe warning about what he classifies as an “unconstitutional tripartite coup” involving the right-wing party PSD, the far-right party Chega and the president of the Assembly of the Republic (AR), Aguiar Branco. The piece details a procedural maneuver that, according to the author, aims to paralyze the constitutional review process, putting the pillars of the democratic regime at risk.

The maneuver represents a behind-the-scenes agreement between the PSD, Chega and the President of the Assembly to ignore the Constitution’s deadlines, allowing them to prepare a constitutional review at their own pace, without clear rules and without the pressure of immediate public and parliamentary scrutiny. It is what the communist leader calls an “unconstitutional coup”.

The 30 day impasse

The starting point of the controversy is the presentation, on May 7, of a constitutional review project by the Chega party. Under article 285 of the Constitution, the presentation of a project opens a non-extendable period of 30 days for the presentation of any others. After this period, the AR Regulations (article 118, § 2) impose the mandatory constitution of an Occasional Constitutional Review Commission.

This mechanism was designed by the constituents to prevent the country from being threatened indefinitely with its Fundamental Law, guaranteeing political, economic and social stability.

The “sine die” suspension of the process

According to Filipe, the president of the Assembly of the Republic circumvented this imperative. Asked about the start of the deadline, Aguiar Branco issued an order determining that the deadline only starts counting from the “admission” of the project, and not from its “presentation”.

More serious, in the author’s view, was the decision to request an opinion without a deadline from the AR’s legal auditor — a body without legal competence for that purpose —, suspending sine the the process and placing it on an “unconstitutional back burner” that serves the interests of Chega and the PSD.

The joint PSD-Chega maneuver

The situation worsened with the presentation of a joint request by PSD and Chega, proposing that the deadline for new projects would only start in December, with Chega making a commitment to change the project already presented. Faced with this scenario, and instead of deciding on the admissibility of the existing project, Aguiar Branco withdrew the request for a legal opinion and waited for Chega to reformulate the text.

For António Filipe, this constitutes a “drawer veto” and management of the process for mere political convenience, ignoring real initiatives in favor of future hypotheses.

The rule of the game (the 30-day timer)

The Constitution is the country’s “maximum law” and changing it cannot be a prolonged process, otherwise the country lives in constant suspense that affects the economy and society. Therefore, the rule is clear: when a party proposes a change to the Constitution, a 30-day “timer” opens. During this period, all other parties can present their own proposals. After 30 days, the timer stops, a special commission is created and everything that was presented begins to be discussed.

The “trick” (the 3-step maneuver)

What the article denounces is that the main “players” (PSD, Chega) and the “referee” (the President of the Assembly, Aguiar Branco) agreed on a way to pause the clock to have all the time in the world to do what they want, without pressure.

1. The Referee refuses to blow the starting whistle: Chega submitted its proposal on May 7th. The timer should have started counting. But the president of the Assembly (the referee) decided that the clock only starts when he formally “admits” the role. To avoid having to admit it now, he asked a technician from the Assembly for a legal opinion, without giving him any deadline. Result: The process is frozen indefinitely (“in a water bath”).
2. The Players ask to postpone the game: Realizing that the timer is stopped, the PSD and Chega make an agreement. They ask the President to only start the clock in December. Chega also says: “Don’t worry, I’ll tear up my proposal from May and make a new one together”.
3. The Referee agrees with the cheating: Instead of forcing Chega to decide on the proposal he It’s already on the tablethe President of the Assembly accepts the excuse, keeps the current proposal in a drawer and waits for them to present the “new” proposal in December.

What does this represent in practice? (the real danger)

To an ordinary citizen, this may seem like just political bureaucracy, but the author of the article warns that it represents something much more serious:

• Changing the rules mid-game for convenience: Parties cannot get together and decide that the rules of the Constitution (the 30 days) do not apply to them. If they do so, they are placing themselves above the highest law of the land.
• Exclude other players: By freezing the process, other parties (the opposition, civil society) are prevented from having their statutory 30 days to present counterproposals in a timely manner.
• The danger to Democracy: The Constitution protects the rights of citizens and the democratic regime. If parties can “pause” constitutional rules behind the scenes to negotiate profound changes to the regime without scrutiny and without deadlines, the “cornerstones” of democracy are at risk.

Warning of democratic danger

The author summarizes his complaint in four crucial points: the president of the AR cannot manage admissibility for political convenience when it comes to a constitutional deadline; the PSD and Chega cannot change constitutional deadlines at will; the AR cannot base decisions on hypothetical initiatives instead of those that are actually on the table; and, finally, this maneuver represents a very serious danger for the democratic regime.

Filipe concludes by calling on “all democrats to sound the alarm bells” in the face of this threat to institutions.