Constitutional Affairs Committee Rules Chega’s Plan Violates Rights
A parliamentary committee on constitutional affairs declared on 20 November 2025 that Chega’s amendment to the 2026 State Budget, which would have banned state funding for the construction or maintenance of mosques, is materially unconstitutional.
The opinion, drafted by PSD deputy Francisco José Martins, says the proposal “introduces explicit discrimination based on religious affiliation” and establishes “an arbitrary and unreasonable inequality of treatment,” violating constitutional principles of equality and religious freedom.
Chega’s Proposal Rejected in Budget Committee Vote
Later that day, in the Committee on Budget, Finance and Public Administration (COFAP), the amendment was voted down. Only Chega supported it, all other parties voted against, with CDS-PP and PAN abstaining.
The COFAP president, Chega’s Rui Afonso, defended holding the vote despite the negative constitutional opinion, saying that refusing it outright would “turn a legal opinion into a mere administrative veto.”
Chega Condemns the Vote, Accuses Other Parties of Ideological Capitulation
In a statement, the Chega parliamentary group criticized PSD, PS, JPP, Livre, BE, and the Communist Party for rejecting the measure. According to deputy Francisco Gomes, the proposal sought to block public funds - including land or infrastructure - for mosques, Islamic schools, Islamic cemeteries or other Islamic institutions.
He called the vote a “disgraceful capitulation” and argued that it threatens Portugal’s cultural identity, saying
It's revolting to see PSD and PS hand in hand with JPP and the other far-left to defeat a Simple proposal: prevent taxpayers' money from being used for building mosques or fostering cultural networks that are alien to our history. That "It's pure political betrayal.
Francisco Gomes, Chega
Legal and Political Implications Highlight Broader Tensions
Legal experts and opposition parties warned that Chega’s proposal would have set a dangerous precedent by targeting a specific religion.
Meanwhile, Chega defended its amendment as a “budgetary measure,” not a religious one, aiming for “transparency” and tighter control of public spending.
The constitutional affairs committee argues that it violated Articles 13, 41, and 18 of the Portuguese Constitution.
The legislator, within the scope of the State Budget, has the freedom to define spending priorities, exclude sectors, impose strict criteria for the public use fund, and establish prohibitions on financing specific entities
Madalena Cordeiro, Chega
Meanwhile, Chega defended its amendment as a “budgetary measure,” not a religious one, aiming for “transparency” and tighter control of public spending.
Care for a share?
Comments