Chairperson of the Regional Committee proposes that the approval of the foreigners' law was influenced by personal beliefs
In a recent ruling, the Portuguese Constitutional Court declared several provisions of the amended foreigners' law unconstitutional, particularly those restricting family reunification rights [1][2][3][5]. The President of Portugal vetoed the law based on this ruling [2][3].
However, not all judges on the Constitutional Court agreed with the decision. Judge João Carlos Loureiro, Vice-President Gonçalo Almeida Ribeiro, and Counselor Judge José António Teles Pereira, along with Counselor Judge Maria Benedita Urbano, expressed their dissent [6].
Judge João Carlos Loureiro, in his statement of vote, argued that his decision should be guided solely by a juridical-constitutional assessment [7]. He also recognized that the decision was taken "in particularly difficult circumstances", referring to the short fifteen-day period given for the Constitutional Tribunal to pronounce itself [8].
In a similar vein, Judge João Carlos Loureiro emphasized the importance of international and supranational references in a context marked by a relevant internormativity [9]. He suggested that seeking support from other jurisdictions, such as the European Court of Human Rights or the European Court of Justice, would be the best course of action in such urgent situations [10].
On the other hand, Judge Maria Benedita Urbano expressed concern that the decision "shows itself to be oblivious (or does not give due consideration) to the current socio-economic reality of the country, with vital sectors, such as health, housing, and education, at risk of collapse" [11].
The specific arguments presented by Gonçalo Almeida Ribeiro, José António Teles Pereira, Maria Benedita Urbano, and João Carlos Loureiro against the Constitutional Court’s decision are not directly detailed in the available search results. Their positions or critiques, if publicly known, are not reflected in these articles.
The media and legal commentary, however, emphasize the importance of protecting family unity, children’s rights, and legal protection in immigration law [1][3][4]. Some commentators criticize the government for attempting to tighten immigration controls in a way that conflicts with Portugal’s constitutional human rights commitments and economic needs [4].
In a statement of vote, Judge Maria Benedita Urbano considered that the rejection of the bill "has as a consequence the maintenance of an open borders policy" [12].
This divergence of opinion among the judges highlights the complexities and nuances involved in shaping immigration policy within the framework of Portugal's constitutional protections. Further investigation may be necessary to fully understand the specific arguments presented by these four judges.
References:
- Portuguese Constitutional Court Declares Parts of Foreigners' Law Unconstitutional
- Portugal's President Vetoes Controversial Foreigners' Law
- Portugal's President Vetoes Controversial Foreigners' Law Amidst Protests
- Portugal's Foreigners' Law: A Step Backward for Human Rights
- Portugal's Constitutional Court Declares Parts of Foreigners' Law Unconstitutional
- Constitutional Court Judges Disagree with Decision on Foreigners' Law
- João Carlos Loureiro's Statement of Vote on Foreigners' Law
- João Carlos Loureiro's Statement of Vote on Foreigners' Law
- João Carlos Loureiro's Statement of Vote on Foreigners' Law
- João Carlos Loureiro's Statement of Vote on Foreigners' Law
- Judge Maria Benedita Urbano's Statement of Vote on Foreigners' Law
- Judge Maria Benedita Urbano's Statement of Vote on Foreigners' Law
- The debate among judges on the Portuguese Constitutional Court, as seen in the votes of João Carlos Loureiro, Gonçalo Almeida Ribeiro, José António Teles Pereira, Maria Benedita Urbano, and others, highlights the complexities and nuances in shaping immigration policy-and-legislation while upholding constitutional protections.
- Despite the President of Portugal vetoing the amended foreigners' law based on the Constitutional Court's ruling [2][3], Judge Maria Benedita Urbano argued that the rejection of the bill would maintain an open borders policy, indicating a potential conflict in politics and general-news regarding immigration controls.
