According to the 19-page document, to which Lusa had access and which will be voted on Wednesday in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Rights, Freedoms and Guarantees, the Chega draft resolution "does not meet the conditions of admissibility" and "suffers from constitutional and regimental non-conformity”.
The opinion, which aims to support whether the Chega project can be admitted to the debate or not, was in charge of the sole deputy of the PAN, Inês Sousa Real. The document concludes that the initiative "has no express constitutional (or regimental) authorization, attributing the competence of the Assembly of the Republic, so that it can censure the behavior of the President of the Assembly of the Republic or of any other Member of the Assembly”. of the Republic, with the exception of what is provided for by law, in particular in the Statute of Deputies".
"The only situation in which the Constitution allows a resolution of censure, by the Assembly of the Republic, concerns the approval of a motion of censure in the government" and not in the speaker of parliament, we read in the text.
Inês Sousa Real also maintains that "the complaint and the appeal to the plenary are the regimental forms of contesting the decisions of the President of the Assembly of the Republic, and it is still possible for the deputies to resort to other regimental figures to respond to actions by the Bureau and/or any alternates”.
In the text, the deputy specifies that "the approval of a motion of censure against the Government is the only case in which the Constitution allows the Assembly of the Republic to decide to censure someone - namely the Government". and, even in these cases, the proper way is not by a resolution, but by a motion, in accordance with paragraph 4 of article 166 of the Constitution.
Inês Sousa Real points out that the deputies "have at their disposal the complaint and the appeal to the plenary as means of contesting the decisions of the President of the Assembly of the Republic and that "only these forms of contestation are possible to overcome the decisions of the Speaker of Parliament "which may be controversial from a legal, constitutional or regimental point of view".
According to the Rules of Procedure, underlines the deputy, parliamentarians also have the possibility of having recourse to other regimental figures to react to the actions of the Bureau or other deputies, in particular by interpellations at the Bureau, to make protests and counter-protests or the defense of honor.
The deputy points out that "any initiative in this direction, if it is finally accepted, constitutes a sterile and gratuitous discussion, because it would not entail any kind of consequence, namely that it would not have any external effect which would be referred to in a resolution " .
“Furthermore, as a mere academic hypothesis, it is not even constitutionally or regimentally possible for a deputy to lose his mandate due to censure of his behavior (article 160, no. loss of deputy mandate), except , of course, which is provided for in the statute of the deputies”, he underlines.
Sousa Real also cites paragraph 1 of article 157 of the Constitution, which establishes that “deputies are not civilly, criminally or disciplinaryly responsible for the votes and opinions they express in the exercise of their functions”.
“The deputies, including His Excellency. the President of the Assembly of the Republic, cannot be censured by the sovereign organs of the Assembly of the Republic, meeting in plenary session, for the political options they defend or for the judgments and assessments they make in the exercise of their parliamentary mandate”, we read if in the text.
At the end of July, Chega presented a draft resolution which aims to censure the behavior of the speaker of parliament, for lack of impartiality and exemption in the exercise of his functions.
Santos Silva asked the Constitutional Affairs Committee to issue an opinion "on the constitutional and regimental conformity" of the draft Chega resolution, "in particular for the purposes of its admissibility" and justified this decision "because of the doubts raised by the Assembly services. but also because of the very deep and very complex ethical-political doubts “raised” not by this specific draft resolution, but by the precedent it may set”.
Writing the opinion was attributed to the PAN after the PSD asked for an excuse to do so, refusing to fuel any political "folklore", and the Liberal Initiative also refused to "do the job that should be done". by the PSD”.