The parties agreed this Thursday to enshrine the promotion of animal welfare in the constitution, in an effort to overturn some of the Constitutional Court’s rulings on the subject, in a meeting that ended with a heated argument over bullfighting.
At the meeting of the final constitutional revision committee, the delegates discussed proposals from the PS and PAN to amend Article 66 on the environment and quality of life, which enshrines the promotion of animal welfare as a duty of the state, as well as a proposal from the BE to create a standalone article on the topic.
Speaking on behalf of the PS, MP Alexandra Leitão referred to the fact that parliament had already passed legislation to protect companion animals, including criminal animals, and recalled that “in at least three situations of concrete review of constitutionality, the Constitutional Court understood that those norms were unconstitutional were, for example, that progress toward criminal protection would require the asset to be specifically enshrined in the constitution as a value to be protected”.
The socialist classified the protection of animal welfare as an “advancement of civilization” and felt it was important to include this reference in the constitution to “support legislation on the subject”.
In January, the Constitutional Court’s Public Prosecutor (MP) asked for the standard that criminalizes anyone who kills or mistreats pets without a valid reason to be declared unconstitutional, a request that arose after three decisions by the TC on the matter.
Social Democrat Emília Cerqueira also defended the importance of introducing this amendment to the Constitution, going beyond the issue raised by the TC and warning of a “legal void”.
Rita Matias, from Chega, agreed with the proposal under debate and Liberal Initiative deputy João Cotrim de Figueiredo defended that this amendment “fills the legal gap” created by the TC’s decisions.
Alma Rivera, of the PCP, felt it was “necessary to guide the evolution of thought and societies towards a different relationship with animals, not merely instrumental”, but said she was not sure that the changes being debated would be able to are to solve the problems presented by the judges of the Ratton Palace.
Pedro Filipe Soares, parliamentary leader of the BE, stressed the importance of having its own article for this amendment, but said he did not see any fundamental differences on this point.
PAN spokesman, Inês Sousa Real, believed that “this leap of civilization must be made”, an idea supported by Livre’s sole deputy, Rui Tavares.
Another of the proposed amendments to Article 66 was from Chega, who proposed to promote the “protection of fauna and flora, namely the prohibition of practices that endanger their ecological function, cause the extinction of species or subject animals to cruelty, according to the law”.
The last part of this amendment was criticized by Social Democrat Emília Cerqueira, for whom Chega’s proposal could open the possibility of banning activities such as bullfighting, and accused the party of contradiction.
Rita Matias started by defending that it was “a matter of interpretation and understanding of Portuguese” and admitted a possible “future clarification”.
The blockista Pedro Filipe Soares already ironically congratulated Chega for wanting to ban bullfights, and praised the party for the “good evolution”.
In an “enlightened” debate, Chega’s deputy defended her proposal several times, saying it was even inspired by the Brazilian constitution, and accused the other parties of finding Chega “contradictory”.
Emília Cerqueira, from PSD, defended that one thing is “intended”, another is “what we do”, stressing the importance of bullfighting activities, an idea that earned the famous opposition from Inês Sousa Real, from PAN, who accused it Chega of “not being a party of the 21st century”.
Other aspects of Article 66 were discussed at length during the first hour and a half of the meeting – with reflections on biodiversity and even fungi – in a discussion where most parties agreed to enshrine the promotion of a “circular economy” as a state responsibility “.
The day before, the delegates had already debated the proposals related to water, agreeing to enshrine the right to drinking water and basic sanitation.
Source: DN
