Welcome to the Official page of the Presidency of the Portuguese Republic

On 31 July, when the country was on holiday or going on holiday, you made what could be termed as a dramatic communiqué to the country which engendered much conjecture. Why such an initiative, never previously taken during your term of Office?

Because I believed it necessary to make the country aware of several provisions of the Charter of the Azores, since these placed at issue the balance of powers between sovereign bodies, a balance which is one of the pillars of our political system. Some of the provisions were restrictive of the exercise of powers by the President of the Republic which are not included in the Constitution. But more important than the provisions was the precedent which was being created. For me, the key word of the communiqué was exactly that: the precedent. That is, permitting that through an ordinary law limits could be introduced to the exercise of powers of a sovereign body. I do not believe that in our democracy, limiting the competences of the President through an ordinary law was ever tried, and thus I would not be exercising my mandate as I should had I not spoken. To accept the precedent would mean accepting that, in the future, this would be raised to impose other restrictions to the powers of the President of the Republic.

Since it is a precedent connected to the constitutional powers of the PR, why did you not place the issues referred to in your communiqué to the Constitutional Court?

I understood it as a politico-institutional disagreement that should be personally faced and not through third parties. My disagreement was so profound that I had to take it upon myself to bring it forward.

But why did you not send a message to Parliament instead, as many commentators then suggested?

Because I could not do so within the framework of the procedure to which is subject legislation submitted by Parliament for enactment. Since the Constitutional Court considered unconstitutional several of the provisions of the Charter, the President is obliged by law to veto the legislation submitted and send a message to Parliament, as I did, stating this was due to reasons of unconstitutionality. The President could not, in the same message, add his own political reservations. The alternative I had was to wait until the legislation was freed of unconstitutionalities by Parliament, possibly towards the end of September, and I could then exercise my right to a political veto. To avoid delays and feeling duty bound to transparency before Parliament I decided that, on the moment I returned the Charter, I was obliged to make public my political divergences so that Members of Parliament, should they so wish, could, simultaneously, correct the unconstitutionalities and consider, or not, my comments and doubts.

It should be recalled that the President can only issue two types of messages concerning legislation submitted by Parliament for enactment: that which explains the reasons for an eventual political veto and that in which, whilst enacting the legislation, he advises Parliament that there are issues over which he disagrees with the chosen options. The President cannot send Parliament messages in which he states the conditions under which he can enact the legislation instead of vetoing it. For this reason, in order to make known my political objections, the only remaining course was to send a message to the country which would consequently become known to political leaders and Members of Parliament.

Even so, I would like to go back to a prior query: why did you not recur to the Constitutional Court since, had this institution found unconstitutionalities in the same issues, Parliament could only insist on their approval with a two thirds majority, but it could overcome your political veto with a simple majority?

I can always request the successive supervision of the legislation. But I must insist that it is a politico-institutional issue. What would my successors think if I had not opposed the creation of this precedent? If it is created, could it not be raised to again limit this or that power of the President of the Republic?

Your 31 July communiqué caused expectations that many considered disproportionate...

I had no other day on which to speak. The Constitutional Court announced its decision on 29 July, in the afternoon; I considered their decision on July 30 and, on July 31 I issued the message with which I returned the legislation to Parliament by reasons of unconstitutionality. And it was on this same day that I must make public my remaining objections to the Charter. I had no choice, since I sent the Charter to the Constitutional Court on 4 July, immediately after receiving it from Parliament, and the Court used the full 25 days that the law allows for each review. I could not have acted any faster. A further issue is to check why the Charter was under review in Parliament for over six months...

In your message you state that, in due time, you called the attention of various political leaders to the issue. Obviously without success. Did you also call the attention of the leaders of the opposition parties, who would end up by helping the unanimous approval of the legislation?

Dialogue between the President and the Government is relatively easy, but there is no dialogue between the President and Parliamentary parties concerning legislation under discussion in Parliament. What may happen are more or less informal talks with political leaders about such legislation. I actually did speak with political leaders of the majority and of the opposition, more than once and throughout the six month period during which the Charter was under review in Parliament. And all those with whom I spoke to call their attention towards the seriousness of certain provisions that affected the balance of power showed great concern and led me to understand that the legislation would be changed. I was convinced this would happen, since the talks were all in the same sense, that the issues would be resolved before the day the legislation would be submitted to the vote. This did not happen.

And did it not happen because regional elections in the Azores will be held in October?

I have some difficulty in understanding why my reservations were not accepted considering the gist of the talks held. Maybe those who were present when the details were discussed in committee can explain what happened. I do not wish to speculate, but I would not be very surprised if the fact that the elections will soon take place could have had some influence.

Do you not fear that your gesture may be used as a theme in Azores election campaign?

I chose the wording very carefully, possibly even making the message difficult to understand for many Portuguese, but I had to take the necessary care to use juridical wording since, should I have to politically veto the legislation after the unconstitutionalities have been corrected, I shall have to use similar wording. This was the time when the Charter was sent to me for enactment. If the issue is linearly dealt with it should not be a campaigning theme.

Weren’t the expectations created on 31 July exaggerated? Couldn’t you have then made known the reason for the message?

It never crossed my mind that there would be so much speculation. For two reasons: the first is that, when I sent the legislation to the Constitutional Court, I stated in my communiqué that I had serious politico-institutional reservations concerning other provisions apart from those over which I requested a review of constitutionality, letting it be understood that these would be opportunely made known; the second is that, during the informal talks that I held with more than half a dozen political leaders during the intervening months, I told them that I considered the precedent so serious that I would have to issue a communiqué to the country if the project went forward such as it was. Since I had been so clear and transparent I believed that the politicians and the analysts would easily discover the reason for the communiqué. And because I even presume that my opinion was not just known by politicians of Continental Portugal. I was mistaken regarding the speculation generated, but I managed at least one effect: the politicians who were already on the beach gave some regard to my communiqué. With hindsight I might have committed an error, but I never anticipated, for the reasons stated, that the theme I would be approaching would not easily be guessed. It was in the initial communiqué, it had been stated to more than half a dozen politicians...

When you mention a precedent are you also referring to what could arise next, in Madeira?

The President of the Madeira Regional Government stated that he was following very closely the conduct of Parliament with regard to the Charter of the Azotes, but to me what is relevant is that I do not establish any difference between the Azores and the Madeira regions. If the issue had been the Charter of Madeira, my positioning would have been exactly the same. However, what I consider totally absurd and illegitimate were the innuendos that some put forward that this was an aggression on regional autonomy. I have proved, throughout my political life, that I respect and defend the autonomies, and that I consider these as one of the successes of our democracy. And it has to be said that the provisions over which I hold greater reservations do not affect autonomy at all, contrary to what has been insinuated. What is essentially at issue is the power of the President to dissolve the Azores Parliament. The Constitution states that the parties and the Council of State must be heard, the Charter added the Regional Parliament, the President of the Regional Government and the regional parliamentary groups and representations. It could happen that the President of the Regional Government would have to be heard three times: as member of the Council of State, as a delegate for his party and as a holder of that Office. Not even in the case of the dissolution of the National Parliament is that required. A President only dissolves a Regional Parliament in very exceptional conditions.

What I do not accept, however, is the use of regional autonomy as a political weapon or as an instrument of demagoguery. Or as a reason to disrespect the Constitution, which I swore to uphold and to keep upheld, creating a precedent that places at issue the powers that are characteristic of it. But there is more: this alteration to the Charter of the Azores results from the 2004 constitutional amendment, in which a number of advances in the regional autonomies were consecrated. The issue that can then be placed is why was the review of the Charter carried out only in 2008, close to the date the elections will be held? Why not in 2005, or 2006, or 2007? I do not know, I only point out that the time chosen was that nearest to the elections.

But now the decision is again in the hands of the Members of Parliament. I have always shown great respect for Parliament, but I must defend what, in conscience, I consider to be most important and to uphold the oath I swore to defend the Constitution.

When you spoke, many Portuguese were going on holiday worried with the economic situation. It is possible they were awaiting a word from you and would have been disappointed with a message that, as you referred, has a juridical content that not many could understand. Will this decision not risk diminishing the reach of future communiqués to the country?

I believe that, excepting those occasions when they traditionally address the country – 25 April, 10 June, 5 October and in the New Year message – no President, in the last twenty or more years, has ever addressed the country on the seriousness of the economic situation. When they did address the country it was always over relevant political and institutional issues. If I had now made an address concerning the economic situation of the country, I would have been committing a political mistake, a serious mistake. I would not be helping the country to conquer its difficulties.

Was there no causal relation between the various decisions of enactment or of vetoing that you had to take during this summer (and there were quite a number)?

No. This is a very specific issue and with special relevance, unique in its politico-institutional scope.