| Subject matter: Constitutional Justice – Constitutional jurisdiction - Relations with other institutions Keywords: Institutions Legislative bodies Political parties Political party, freedom of association Deference, judicial deference |
RULING N. 279/2023
Headnotes:
1. The election of the President of the Federation as a result of the resignation of the former president is an exceptional or atypical situation, not expressly foreseen in the party’s constitution. According to the Court, this falls under the discretion of the party, since it is an internal matter of the party, within its sphere of organizational autonomy.
Summary:
2. The member alleged that the election of the President of the Federation without either the simultaneous election of the delegates to the Congress, or the obligation to present a guiding political statement breached the party’s constitution, which establishes a connection between those two acts. He also alleged that it breached the Electoral Regulation on Presidents of the Federation and delegates to the Congress of the Federation, according to which the candidacy process must include a Party Manifesto or a Political Motion. He argued that the challenged resolution prevented members from electing and being elected in accordance with the party’s constitution and the Electoral Regulation, i.e. from exercising their right to participate in political life, in violation of the principles of transparency and democratic management and of participation of all members of the political party. He was thus of the opinion that he was rendered unable to run for President of the Federation, for, if he were elected, he would have to meet with a Congress formed in a context different from the present one and execute a political programme with which he disagreed. On the other hand, he claimed that the elections had not been set by the competent body according to the established in the party’s constitution.
3. The challenging party requested, under Article 103-E of the Law of the Constitutional Court, the suspension of the effects of the challenged resolution, claiming the possibility of considerable damage caused by its execution.
4. Having been duly summoned, the political party answered that the challenged resolution did not breach the party’s constitution or the Electoral Regulation.
5. The ruling started by explaining that, in cases like this one, the intervention of the Constitutional Court is only justified when there has been a serious breach of essential rules regarding the powers or the democratic functioning of the party.
6. In this case, the Court concluded that the challenged resolution did not breach the party’s constitution, since the latter did not impose an inevitable connection between the election of the President of the Federation and the election of the delegates to the Congress of the Federation, nor the Electoral Regulation, which it deemed inapplicable to the electoral act in question.
7. As a result, the Court rejected the challenging party’s argument that the challenged resolution prevented members of the party from electing and being elected in accordance with the party’s constitution and Electoral Regulation, which had been used by the challenging party to claim the breach of the right to participate in political activity and the principles of transparency and democratic management and of participation of all members of the political party.
8. The Court added that a single election (taking place without the other election), and without the presentation of a political project to be discussed by the Congress of the Federation, is not an objective obstacle to the challenging party’s right, as a member of the party, to run for President of the Federation. The challenged resolution would only entail for the challenging party, should he be elected, the need to meet with an already-set Congress and execute a political programme to which he had not contributed. These are mere inconveniences, not serious enough to compromise the democratic functioning of the party.
9. The Court further highlighted that the election of the President of the Federation as a result of the resignation of the former president is an exceptional or atypical situation, not expressly foreseen in the party’s constitution. According to the Court, this falls under the discretion of the party, since it is an internal matter of the party, within its sphere of organizational autonomy.
10. Lastly, the Court stated that setting the election did not breach the established in the party’s constitution concerning the competent body to do so.
11. Based on the above, the Court deemed that the grounds for the challenge did not fit the concept of “serious breach of essential rules concerning the powers or the democratic functioning of the party”, thus making it impossible to decide on the challenging party’s request.
12. The Court therefore considered that it could not rule on the requested preliminary injunction.
Language:
Portuguese