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

Mr Speaker of the Assembly of the Republic
Mr President of the Supreme Court of Justice
Mr Minister of Justice
Mr Attorney General
Mr President of the Bar Council
Ladies and Gentlemen 

I begin this opening ceremony of the 2008 judicial year by addressing myself to the Portuguese people, since it is in their name that justice is administered.

Our citizens are the ultimate recipients of a judicial power that exists not for its own sake, but in order to achieve two of the noblest human aspirations: justice in freedom and security in society.

I therefore salute all our citizens who legitimately seek the courts in search of justice, and who expect the courts, with independence and rigour, to do them justice within a reasonable period of time.

I also salute the Portuguese judiciary, paying my respects to the dedication of the magistrates and judges and to the effort they have made to resolve in a timely manner the thousands of cases that pour into our courts every year.

The nobility of the legal profession requires the judiciary to be honoured and respected.

This obligation applies not only to political representatives but also to the judiciary and judicial operators in general, in the context of a culture of responsibility and dignity, regardless of personal ambitions or public exposure.

Unlike other ruling bodies, the courts do not have direct democratic legitimacy.

Their legitimacy is a legitimacy of exercise, not a legitimacy of right, to use two concepts very familiar to all those in this room.

The legitimacy of the function of judging depends on the timeframe and the way in which this function is exercised. Hence a judicial system can only be considered truly democratic if it is able to meet the community’s expectations in an effective and timely manner.

As a consequence, certain questions are often raised regarding justice. Simple questions but essential ones: do the Portuguese trust and believe in their country’s justice? In the eyes of our citizens, is our judicial system efficient and capable of protecting their rights? Do our people consider that the justice we have is truly fair and equal for everyone?

The answer to these questions is fundamental in defining the profile and future of Portuguese justice. Without yielding to facile or transient populism, it is undeniable that any reform of the judicial system must address the Portuguese people’s legitimate concerns regarding justice and security.

There has long been talk of a crisis of justice and of the need to reform the judicial system.

Consequently, we make new laws, amend enacted legislation, try out new solutions and place our trust in the power of new technologies. Many problems have been diagnosed. It has been possible to achieve consensus in various areas.

However, the question remains: are the Portuguese content with the judicial system and the decisions of its judges? Are our citizens proud of their country’s justice?

With regard to the reforms that have already been introduced or are under way, we must remember, above all, that a regulatory system may be quite perfect from a technical and legal point of view, but it will only be effective if it meets three conditions.

Firstly, the reforms must be understandable to the public.

Even those who do not have a legal background must be able to grasp the basic meaning of the changes introduced in their country’s legal system.

Also, without prejudice to the necessary technical rigour, judicial decisions must have the necessary clarity to make them understandable to those affected by them.

Just as judicial policy must follow a coherent, transparent direction, jurisprudence must also have rational grounds and criteria of material justice that the public is capable of understanding.

Clear legislation and responsible decision-making are essential for citizenship.

Secondly, it is impossible to set out to reform the law without listening to those who through personal experience have gained an intimate knowledge of the workings of the legal system and who deal with thousands of cases in our courts on a daily basis.

No law, however perfect in theory, exists in the abstract. While laws have to be clear and understandable for citizens, they must be all the more so for those whose task it is to apply them to concrete cases.

Laws must never be devised without a realistic evaluation of the conditions of their applicability. There is no point in us having very advanced or ambitious laws if we do not possess the means to put them into practice.

Only a legal practitioner can say if a law that is made is practicable.

Thirdly, major changes to the judicial system must be accompanied by constant scrutiny of their results.

It is essential for us to know the effects that a particular reform has had, and whether it has had positive or negative consequences in relation to the goals it was intended to achieve.

It is essential for us to understand what went well and what went badly in order to be able to make an objective assessment of what must be corrected and improved.

We often think that a reform is made through a simple change in the regulatory texts. This is not true.

Changing legal regulations may not be the most difficult part of any reform.

A true reform is carried out in a considered, balanced way, with a view to stability and anticipation of its consequences and costs.

Changes in our enacted legislation and laws must be subject to constant monitoring of the results produced and to an effort to detect problems at an early stage.

It is no use making reforms if we do not make an evaluation of their effectiveness in increasing the productivity and quality of the public justice service.

Furthermore, in relation to all major reforms, whether in the areas of justice, social security, education, health or any other, it is vital to extend the practice of setting up small units to monitor their execution so that the political agents can introduce the improvements that experience may show to be necessary.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We all know that judicial activity has its own timeframes.

The timeframes for high-quality justice are not, nor should they be, the same as the hectic pace of the media, from which we also expect restraint, seriousness and accuracy in reporting the cases being heard in our courts.

However, the timeframe for justice must be the timeframe of the citizens, the timeframe of a society in constant change.

The effective working of the legal system is fundamental not only in ensuring individual rights and guarantees, but also for a country’s economic and social development.

Justice comes with costs, but slow-moving or unpredictable justice will always have much higher costs for a country’s progress and wellbeing.

The courts are certainly not factories for producing judicial decisions. But this does not mean they should be exempt from a quantitative appraisal of the work they do.

Swiftness is not an absolute value, but slowness must not be an ingrained practice.

The operational shortcomings of the judicial system undermine the smooth running and vitality of economic activity, discourage investment, contribute to increasing social tensions and conflicts and stimulate the growth of insecurity.

Access to the law and the courts is a fundamental right that must continue to be ensured and extended.

Equality before the law exists only where and when there is equality in access to justice and to all legal guarantees.

Justice must not be the prerogative of those who use all legal instruments as a delaying tactic to hinder or block the progress of judicial decisions.

The Rule of Law must not be a hostage of those who have more resources.

As well as being a condition of development, swiftness in the administration of justice is also essential for social equality.

It is intolerable for some cases to drag on for years just because the parties have the means to avoid the prompt execution of justice.

It is unacceptable for the legal guarantees, which exist to ensure justice, to end up reproducing and even exacerbating existing inequalities in society.

If this is the case, justice will turn into an element that creates new injustices and becomes a new social exclusion factor.

This is decidedly not the model of justice that I wish for Portugal. And I am sure too that it is not the model of justice that those present in this room desire for their country.

It is therefore urgent for there to be a collective mobilisation for justice, a civic commitment to improving the judicial system.

In this context, citizens and enterprises are called upon to share a legal culture of responsibility, understanding, above all, that justice comes with related costs.

It is a civic duty not to overburden the judicial system with litigation that could be settled elsewhere. It is a civic duty to respect judicial decisions and those who proffer them. It is a civic duty not to use the law for purposes that are not appropriate to it.

A legal culture of responsibility involves political agents as well as legal operators.

It is no use dividing responsibilities between those who legislate and those who enforce the laws, prolonging conflicts and tensions that in the eyes of our citizens only bring discredit to the justice system and its protagonists.

There is little point in trying to find people to blame for the state of the Portuguese legal system. Some people may be to blame, but the problem of justice affects everyone.

As I said at the beginning, the justice system does not exist for its own sake, but to serve our citizens.

The Portuguese people want more security and better justice.

The President of the Republic will always be on the side of our citizens in defending the fundamental values of the democratic Rule of Law.

In the name of these values, I hope the judicial year now being inaugurated will be a year of peace, hard work and high standards.

I am sure that everyone will contribute calmly so that Portugal can have a high-quality, citizen-oriented system of justice that operates effectively and fairly.

In the name of a fairer system of justice, I wish you a good 2008 judicial year.