The Committee on Constitutional Affairs ruled on Thursday, 20 November, that a Chega proposal to amend the 2026 State Budget, aimed at banning the allocation of public funds for the construction of mosques, is unconstitutional, with only the proponent voting against the decision.
The Committee met this morning, ahead of the start of the 2026 State Budget debate and vote, and approved an opinion drafted by Social Democratic (PSD) MP Francisco José Martins, concluding that Chega’s proposal does not comply with the Portuguese Constitution.
The opinion was backed by PS, PSD, PCP, Livre and JPP, with Chega voting against and CDS-PP abstaining.
The document states that Chega’s amendment “explicitly discriminates on the basis of religious affiliation” and establishes “an arbitrary and unreasonable inequality of treatment”, violating “the constitutional principles of equality and religious freedom in an irremediable way”.
As such, the committee concluded that the proposal “does not meet the requirements” to be admitted for debate and vote within the framework of the 2026 State Budget.
Presenting the opinion, Francisco José Martins argued that Chega’s amendment is “materially unconstitutional for violating Articles 13, 41 and 18 of the Portuguese Constitution”.
Defending the proposal, Chega MP Madalena Cordeiro claimed that it “in no way restricts religious freedom, as no one is prevented from practising their religion, no religious practice is banned, no mosque will be closed, no denomination is barred from organising itself and no act of worship is constrained”.
Cordeiro further argued that “the legislator, within the State Budget, is free to set spending priorities, exclude sectors, impose strict criteria on the use of public funds and establish prohibitions on financing specific entities”, concluding that “blocking funding is a budgetary measure, not a religious one”.
Socialist Party (PS) MP Isabel Moreira opined that the blocking of the amendment was “spot on”, adding that the request for it came from a committee chaired by a Chega deputy in order to force the issue into discussion.
“Politically, it is obvious why this proposal was made,” she said, describing it as coming from “a party with a deeply Islamophobic agenda”.
CDS-PP MP João Almeida said the opinion was “very well reasoned” and reflected “a perfectly legitimate interpretation of constitutional principles”.
However, he justified his abstention by arguing that it sets “a poor precedent” for the Constitutional Affairs Committee to issue an opinion that could prevent parliamentary initiatives from being admitted.
For Livre, MP Paulo Muacho accused Chega of discrimination.
“If the goal were budgetary prudence and spending restraint, then we would be discussing a ban on State funding for any type of church, or the end of certain privileges and exemptions that churches benefit from,” he noted.
PCP parliamentary leader Paula Santos also accused Chega of pursuing a specific agenda with the proposal, while JPP MP Filipe Sousa stressed that “constitutional matters are sacred”.
In the end, the committee’s ruling reaffirmed the importance of democratic principle in an era of populist conduct. But the deeper story is how Chega continues to test the boundaries of those protections, not necessarily with the expectation of legislative success, but with the aim of influencing public discourse.
