The parties agreed to enshrine the welfare of animals in the Basic Law.

This Thursday, the parties agreed to enshrine the promotion of animal welfare in the Constitution, to try to circumvent some of the Constitutional Court’s decisions on the matter in a meeting that ended in a heated debate about bullfighting.

At a meeting of a possible constitutional review commission this Thursday, MPs debated PS and PAN proposals that would amend Article 66. BE’s proposal to create a separate article on this issue.

PS MP Alexandra Leitao referred to the fact that Parliament had already adopted a law on the protection of companion animals, including criminal ones, and recalled that “in at least three cases of specific constitutionality testing, the Constitutional Court realized that these norms were unconstitutional, for consideration that progress towards criminal protection would require that the good be specifically enshrined in the Constitution as a value to be protected.”

The Socialist classified the protection of animal welfare as “civilizational progress”, deeming it important to include this reference in the Constitution in order to “support the legislation enacted in this matter”.

In January, the Public Prosecutor’s Office (MP) petitioned the Constitutional Court to declare unconstitutional a provision that would impose a fine or imprisonment on anyone who, without good reason, kills or abuses pets. TC on this.

Social Democrat Emilia Cerqueira also defended the importance of making this change to the Constitution, going beyond the issue raised by the TC and warning of a “legal void”.

Chega’s Rita Matias agreed with the proposal under discussion, while Liberal Initiative MP João Cotrim de Figueiredo said the amendment “fills the legal void” created by the TC decisions.

PKP’s Alma Rivera felt it was “necessary to accompany the evolution of thought and society towards a relationship with animals other than just instrumental ones”, but said she was not sure that the changes being discussed would solve the issues raised by the Rutton Palace judges.

Pedro Filipe Soares, BE’s parliamentary leader, stressed the importance of this amendment having a separate article, but said he did not see fundamental differences on the issue.

PAN spokesman Ines Sousa Real believes that “it is necessary to make this civilizational leap”, and this idea was supported by Livre’s sole deputy Ruy Tavares.

Another of the proposed amendments to Article 66 was proposed by Chega, which proposed to promote “the protection of fauna and flora, namely, to prohibit actions that endanger their ecological function, lead to the extinction of species or cruelty to animals in accordance with the law.”

The final part of this amendment was criticized by the Social Democrat Emilia Cerqueira, for whom Chega’s proposal could open the possibility of banning activities such as bullfighting, and accused the party of being inconsistent.

Rita Mathias began by stating that it was “a matter of interpretation and understanding of the Portuguese language” and allowed for a possible “clarification in the future”.

Already blocker Pedro Filipe Soares ironically congratulated Chega on his desire to ban bullfighting, hailing the party for a “good evolution”.

In a “heated” debate, MP Chega defended his proposal several times, saying that it was even inspired by the Brazilian Constitution, and accused other parties of trying to find Chega “in controversy”.

PSD’s Emilia Cerqueira defended that one “is the intention” and the other is “what we do”, emphasizing the importance of bullfighting, an idea that earned notorious opposition from PAN’s Inés Sousa Real, who accused Cheg of “not is the party of the 21st century.

Other aspects of Article 66 were discussed extensively during the first hour and a half of the meeting – with reflections on biodiversity and even mushrooms – in a discussion in which most parties agreed to anchor the promotion of a “circular economy” as the responsibility of the State.”

The day before, the deputies had already discussed proposals related to water, agreeing on securing the right to drinking water and basic sanitary conditions.