Congrats on your happy marriage
4 Likes
If you click on Recolha de Contributos, you will see a Report on the reviews/comments that have been received in the public consultation until today (15 oct 2025)
So the “game” they are playing is to throw out some outlandish proposal (i.e., retroactivity to a date before the law is even passed), and then begrudgingly agree to remove that to resolve the unconstitutionality. Do they think the President and TC are stupid? Let’s hope they see past this charade.
Also, they completely ignore the concerns of Sr. Miranda ?
5 Likes
If you click the “quadro comparativo” link at the bottom of that page you can see the comparison of the original text of nationality law with the proposal of June and revision of 13th october. What i understand:
-time count: 7 years for CPLP and EU, 10 years for others. (I thought it would be 7 for all. Also i have not seen any grandfathering or positive handling of current residents)
-loss of nationality clauses not only for naturalization but to all acquisitions.
-june 19th deadline removed (as expected).
-the clause about exclusion of duration from application to approval of residence for the time count removed (please comment, not sure about the result of this).
1 Like
Does anyone know the contacts of the Constitutional Court? I would like to add them to the recipients of our letters, along with the Deputados, the President, and the Government ministers.
Hi everyone, I feel there’s an URGENT NEED FOR A PETITION about grandfathering people who applied for PGV/ARI. A lot of us didn’t want to start this because we thought it might be unpopular with the general public. However, there are no protections for citizens of the US, UK, China, India, etc.—the group with the largest number of applicants.
Given the huge number of applications still not approved, I believe we can get the 7,500 signatures needed. It’s common for countries to change citizenship laws, but it’s extremely rare for countries with CBI/GV programs to move the goalposts halfway through. No one will help us if we don’t advocate for our own rights. For example, new petitions are being signed by CPLP applicants right now—we need to create a similar petition. (CPLP petition)
NO MATTER WHEN THE COUNTING TIME STARTS: if the law changes, after 7 years the AVALANCHE of applications through CPLP routes will make the backlog even worse.
2 Likes
If so that will make the backlog even worse. My point is: emailing deputies is helpful, but at some point we need to put our reasoning on the record. I already signed the initial petition (the petition for everyone, not just ARI applicants) in the summer, and I believe someone mentioned in a previous post that the original organizer will go to Parliament this Friday (Oct 17). We need to prepare ahead of time and outline the key points, because they could rush the vote before the state budget.
1 Like
If anyone is able and willing to initiate the petition I will sign. I feel like I cannot do everything at the same time.
2 Likes
The proposal is to replace residence for at least 5 years for all with: Residirem legalmente no território português há pelo menos 7 anos, no caso de nacionais de países de língua oficial portuguesa e de cidadãos de Estados Membros da União Europeia, ou 10 anos, no caso de nacionais de outros países;
that is: minimum residence at least 7 years for EU/CPLP countries and 10 years for other countries.
@anonymous69
Where did you see this? I am reading 7 or 10 years in the latest proposal of psd-cds 13th October 2025.
“Residirem legalmente no território português há pelo menos 7 anos, no caso de nacionais de países de língua oficial portuguesa e de cidadãos de Estados Membros da União Europeia, ou 10 anos, no caso de nacionais de outros países.”
Sorry I thought I read 5 years for CPLP somewhere but checking again I can’t find it. Deleted my post to avoid misleading anyone.
1 Like
The “game” is to reassure voters mad about the immigration system. Montenegro wants to look in charge. That means we’re going to see a rush of performative policy designed largely for news headlines, less for coherence or durability. Sadly, politics isn’t a system built for nuance. The public wants quick scapegoats.
The court will apply stricter scrutiny. We saw that with the immigration decree. Keep in mind, even if the nationality law passes and survives constitutional court review, that’s not the end of the story. If you’re directly/adversely affected by new rules, you can still challenge them in court and raise constitutional objections. In those cases, the courts can look at how the rules operate in practice (rather than in abstract theory, which is what the constitutional court does in the preventative review). Nothing is set in stone.
4 Likes
Agreed. Will sign too!
Did you find the contacts of the Constitutional Court? I can ask my lawyer and see if I can get one. Shall I?
I agree and will support, in fact, I had proposed a joint petition of this nature in a WhatsApp group, but many did not want to sign so I dropped it
1 Like
They are noted in the Committee “Requests for opinion” (screenshot below) … and then completely ignored in regard to arbitrary start dates with “No discernible reason” 
1 Like
https://www.tribunalconstitucional.pt/tc/contactos.html
fwiw, here’s AI’s summary of what each of those TC roles does…
| Unit | Main Role | Key Functions |
|---|---|---|
| Gabinete do Presidente | Support to the President | Institutional representation, coordination, legal and administrative assistance |
| Gabinete do Vice-Presidente | Support to the Vice-President | Legal and administrative assistance, manages 2nd Section |
| Gabinetes dos Juízes Conselheiros | Individual judge support | Legal research, drafting, case prep |
| Secretaria-Geral | Administrative management | Directs internal services, staff, and operations |
| Secretaria Judicial | Judicial process management | Registers, files, notifications, minutes, procedural logistics |
| 1st, 2nd, 3rd Sections | Judicial divisions | Hear and decide constitutional cases (except those reserved for the Plenary) |
I’m not sure what bothering the court now, while the law is still being drafted, would accomplish. There are 2 official paths for the court to intercede:
- President refers the draft law to the court, they note unconstitutional parts and revert to parliament.
- Even after the law is passed, a case challenging the law can go to court who can strike down unconstitutional parts of the law.
Are these 2 paths not sufficient?
I always get jumped on when I dare point out any “hard realities” of our plight, but sanity checking is part of my day job so here goes…
Putting aside the More than 133,000 AIMA cases already pending in the Lisbon Administrative Court…
This would be more than just a Judge saying “Hey AIMA, dig this person’s application out of your basement and give it some ‘fast-track’ attention” - resulting in that person getting the same approval given to any other applicant under the current laws. Nothing new or ‘exceptional’ is created by such a ruling.
What we’re talking here is next-level, either:
- A challenge all the way to the top that changes the Nationality Law for everyone, or at least a general class like ARIs → does that require a class action (rare but not unheard of in PT)?
- Individual cases (see 133k+ backlog above). But can a Judge really say “Hey Country of Portugal, give this person nationality/a passport after only 5 years,” despite others of their kind having to wait until 10? Are there examples in other (democratic) countries where one Judge can grant one person a passport, that most other similar people can’t have?
This will not be easy.
1 Like
Yes when a law conflicts with the Constitution it is struck down for everyone. Here’s an example ChatGPT gave me - a 2022 ruling that struck down portions of a 2008 Metadata Retention law as violating the constitution:
https://www.tribunalconstitucional.pt/tc/en/acordaos/20220268s.html
At the request of the Ombudsman, the Constitutional Court declared the unconstitutionality of the provisions of articles 4 and 6 of Law no. 32/2008, of 17 July, which determine the retention of all traffic and location data relating to all communications or attempts thereto by telecommunications and electronic communications service providers, for a period of one year, with a view to their possible future use for the prevention, investigation and prosecution of serious crimes.
2 Likes