Portugal Keeps MPs’ Two-Step Immunity, Slowing Corruption Inquiries

The Portugal Assembly of the Republic has rejected a proposal to make it easier for prosecutors to suspend an MP’s legal immunity, a move that leaves the current two-step approval process intact and continues to give deputies an extra procedural shield in criminal cases.

Why This Matters

• Corruption files stay slower: Investigators must still persuade an examining judge before Parliament can even vote on lifting an MP’s immunity.

• No change to Article 11 of the Statute of Deputies: The controversial clause that grants lawmakers added protection survives another challenge.

• Investors keep an eye on rule-of-law ratings: Portugal’s score in EU governance benchmarks remains unchanged, for better or worse.

• Citizens still pay the bill: Lengthier inquiries mean extra court costs—ultimately financed by taxpayers.

How the System Works Today

Under current legislation, a deputy cannot be arrested or brought to trial for acts committed during the parliamentary term without two green lights: first from an investigating judge, then from the Assembly’s Committee on Transparency and Ethics. Only after both approvals may prosecutors proceed. The model was written into the 1976 Constitution to protect opposition voices in the post-dictatorship era.

The Attempted Overhaul

A draft amendment—introduced by Iniciativa Liberal and backed by several civic-tech NGOs—sought to skip the judge and allow the Public Prosecutor’s Office to lodge its request directly with Parliament. Supporters argued that modern anti-corruption drives demand quicker action and that Portugal is one of just four EU states maintaining a double-filter regime.

The idea briefly gained traction after last year’s headline-grabbing investigations into alleged influence-peddling inside state-owned companies. Still, the measure fell eight votes short of the super-majority needed for statutory change. The centre-left PS and centre-right PSD closed ranks, warning of “prosecutorial overreach.”

Political Framing vs. Practical Reality

While rivals traded barbs over whether the vote signalled complacency toward graft, the legal community points to a more mundane fact: any amendment would also require altering the Constitution—a far heavier lift than revising ordinary law. Constitutional scholars note that Portugal already allows the Supreme Court to fast-track cases involving sitting MPs, though that mechanism is rarely invoked.

What This Means for Residents

• Fewer shortcuts in high-profile probes: Citizens hoping for swift clarity in scandals—from under-the-table real-estate deals to alleged misallocation of EU recovery funds—will see no procedural acceleration.

• Small business owners and contractors remain in limbo longer when public-sector corruption claims stall project approvals.

• Taxpayers continue to underwrite extended legal battles, as the state covers both investigative costs and MPs’ parliamentary allowances while trials are pending.

• Transparency advocates face an uphill climb, needing either a broad coalition inside Parliament or a nationwide referendum to revisit immunity rules.

Next on the Legislative Radar

Back-benchers from several parties hinted they may return with a narrower bill—one that keeps the judicial filter but imposes a strict time-limit for parliamentary votes. Meanwhile, the Portugal Constitutional Affairs Committee is studying whether digital-forensics evidence gathered abroad requires separate clearance when a deputy is involved.

For now, residents should not expect any immediate overhaul. The quixotic quest to streamline parliamentary immunity appears shelved, at least until the next constitutional revision window opens in 2028.