PS and PSD were isolated in the proposals to include deprivation of liberty for seriously ill patients in the event of an emergency in the constitution, while the other parties believed that the current legal framework should be maintained.
However, socialists and social democrats — who make up two-thirds of the constitution needed to amend the constitution — have declared their willingness to reach a consensus between the two, though discussion of the article will come midway through Thursday’s meeting of the final constitutional revision committee and only it will be finished Tuesday next week.
On an issue that the President of the Republic, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, has already said is a priority in the revision of the Constitution – how to introduce confinement with legal certainty in the event of a new pandemic, even without a state of emergency – both parties choose to add a new exception to the current ones that already allow deprivation of liberty in the article that regulates the right to liberty and security (27e).
Socialists note that deprivation of liberty can happen “separation of a person with a serious infectious disease or in respect of whom there is a well-founded fear of spreading a serious disease or infection, determined by the health authority, by reasoned decision, for the time strictly necessary, in the event of an emergency on the field of public health, with the guarantee of an urgent appeal to the judicial authority”.
PSD uses a different wording: “Detention or hospitalization for public health reasons of a person with a serious infectious disease, for the time strictly necessary, determined or confirmed by a competent judicial authority”.
Presenting the proposals, the deputy Mónica Quintela expressed doubts about the phrase “secession” used by the socialists (she said it resembled “apartheid”), and emphasized that the social democrats demand that there be a disease that already verified – rather than just a “well-founded fear” – and above all “the seal of a judge”, the decision of an administrative body is not enough.
“I think it won’t be difficult for us to agree or reach a consensus on a common wording”said the PSD deputy.
For the PS, Alexandra Leitão admitted that judicial intervention “would make perfect sense”, but warned that it would be difficult to achieve quickly. “promulgated or confirmed by a judicial authority”, as it would allow an authorization ‘a posteriori’.
At that time, former Health Minister Marta Temido also stepped in to point out that the experience of covid-19 advises isolating not only infected people, but also those with strong suspicions of the disease (thus underlining the importance of the quarantine period). stressed), and warned that it would be impossible to subject this practice to prior judicial authorization “on days when there were 30,000 cases”.
Chega, by deputy Rui Paulo Sousa, accused PS and PSD of “intending to admit compulsory hospitalization”, while former IL president João Cotrim Figueiredo even spoke of “notorious article”.
“I am shocked by the lightness and ease with which security and totalitarian issues are discussed as if we were talking about trivial subjects”criticized.
Less radical in terms, but also critical were the other parties, with the parliamentary leader of the BE, Pedro Filipe Soares, who argued that “so excessive a suppression of rights” always requires a state of emergency, the wording of which no one has proposed this in this constitutional amendment.
“What the experience of the pandemic shows is the unnecessary necessity of this requirement and the great adherence to sanitary measures. What we need to do is reflect on the excesses committed and not constitutionalize the excesses”confirmed PCP delegate Alma Rivera.
In the same vein, Livre’s sole deputy, Rui Tavares, said he would have to be “very convinced” to accept this suppression of rights, saying he was satisfied with the current wording of the constitution that would have included the decree of a state of need to impose this kind of deprivation of liberty.
“It is with concern that we view these solutions as formulated”also pointed to the only member of the PAN Inês Sousa Real, and stressed that parliament’s involvement in all decisions during the covid-19 pandemic led the government to provide more information to deputies.
Along the way came the proposals of the PCP in this article to limit the disciplinary detention of military personnel to “time of war or during military missions”, as well as those of the PSD, so that in the Autonomous Regions the execution of the declaration of a state of emergency was insured by the regional government.
Source: DN
