The First Committee convened this morning, prior to the commencement of the debate and voting on the State Budget for 2026. They approved an opinion drafted by Social Democrat deputy Francisco José Martins, which concluded that Chega’s proposal is not compliant with the Constitution of the Republic.
The opinion received approval from PS, PSD, PCP, Livre, and JPP, while Chega voted against and CDS-PP abstained.
The document states that the Chega proposal demonstrates “explicit discrimination based on religious confession” and establishes “an arbitrary and unreasonable inequality of treatment,” violating “the constitutional principles of equality and religious freedom, in an irreparable way.”
Therefore, the committee concluded that the proposal “does not meet the requirements” to be admitted for discussion and voting within the State Budget for 2026.
In presenting the opinion, deputy Francisco José Martins declared that Chega’s amendment proposal is “materially unconstitutional for violating Articles 13, 41, and 18 of the Portuguese Constitution.”
Defending the proposal, Chega deputy Madalena Cordeiro argued that it “does not in any way restrict religious freedom, [since] no person is prevented from professing their religion, no religious practice is prohibited, no mosque will be closed, no confession is prohibited from organizing, and no act of worship is conditioned.”
Madalena Cordeiro also contended that “the legislator, within the scope of the State Budget, has the freedom to define spending priorities, exclude sectors, impose strict criteria for the public use fund, and establish prohibitions on financing specific entities,” concluding that “financing impediment is a budgetary measure and never a religious measure.”
Deputy Isabel Moreira of PS remarked that the opinion “is impeccable” and considered that the document was requested by a committee chaired by a deputy from Chega to bring the matter to discussion.
“From a political perspective, it’s clear why this proposal was made,” she stated, noting that it was presented by “a party with a highly Islamophobic agenda.”
João Almeida of CDS-PP acknowledged that the opinion “is very well-founded and reflects an entirely legitimate and understandable position from the perspective of interpreting constitutional precepts.”
However, the Christian Democrat justified his abstention by considering it “a bad principle” for the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, Rights, Freedoms, and Guarantees “to issue an opinion that leads to parliamentary initiatives not being admitted.”
From Livre, deputy Paulo Muacho accused Chega of discrimination.
“If the goal were fiscal prudence and expenditure restraint, then what we would be discussing is that the State could not fund any type of church, or we would be discussing ending some privileges and exemptions that churches have,” he emphasized.
The leader of PCP’s parliamentary group, Paula Santos, also accused Chega of having an objective with this proposal, and Filipe Sousa of JPP argued that “constitutional issues are sacred.”
[News updated at 11:34 a.m.]
