University professor António Manuel Almeida Costa, opposed to abortion even in the case of rape and defending restrictions on the work of the press, had his nomination for Portugal’s highest court, the Constitutional Court, rejected this Tuesday (31).
According to analysts, the result considered unexpected is linked to the rejection of the professor’s name, galvanized by the public pressure that was mobilized after considered positions came to light with the leak of the news of his appointment.
The choice of members of the TC (Constitutional Court), whose terms last nine years and cannot be renewed, is usually done without major disturbances.
Of the 13 judges, 10 are nominated by Parliament, with public scrutiny sessions — as is the case in the US and Brazil, where candidates are nominated by the president. The remaining 3 are chosen by the magistrates who already compose the court, in a process without hearings and carried out away from the public.
Normally, the name of the new member is only disclosed after the process is completed. This time, however, the situation was different. Almeida Costa’s name was leaked to the press in advance, in a clear indication of internal discontent within the TC itself.
As in the release of a draft vote by the US Supreme Court that should reverse the right to abortion in the country, the Portuguese case seemed to be a maneuver to draw attention to the issue, trying to change the apparently already defined picture.
The internal appointments of the magistrates, technically called co-optations, are guided by some unwritten rules. To try to provide some ideological balance, although the votes respect different motivations, the three seats are normally distributed as follows: a more progressive nomination, a more conservative and a centrist nomination.
Appointed by the five judges more to the right, Almeida Costa needed to win at least two other support to get approval. Three of the magistrates linked to the Socialist Party had already made it clear that they would oppose the professor’s entry; the position of the others remained unknown.
The final score of the vote was not reported. In a note, the Constitutional Court limited itself to informing that “the process concerning the proposed name was concluded without any co-optation having taken place”. Also according to the text, the process of a new nominee will be resumed soon.
The visibility of the case made politicians and jurists speak out in favor of more transparency in the process of choosing the members of the highest court in the country, which will soon debate topics such as the legalization of euthanasia.
A university professor of criminal law and member of the Superior Council of the Public Ministry, António Manuel Almeida Costa, 66, is classified as an ultra-conservative by his peers. In addition to revealing the name of the professor, a report in the Diário de Notícias brought up his position on abortion.
In 1984, he signed an article in which he argued that the voluntary termination of pregnancy should not be allowed even in the case of rape – only in the context of the imminent risk of death of the pregnant woman. The text cited research that would indicate that pregnancy after rape is rare, but the references lacked scientific credibility and were linked to movements against abortion rights in the US. One of the works based its conclusions on “experiments” conducted in Nazi concentration camps during the Holocaust.
Years later, the professor again signed texts condemning the voluntary termination of pregnancy, which was decriminalized in Portugal in 2007, after a referendum.
In 2019, in a hearing for the Superior Council of the Public Ministry in Parliament, the professor defended the imposition of limits on press freedom and accused deputies of unwillingness to punish journalists who reveal information protected under judicial secrecy.
Almeida Costa stated that the press takes refuge in defending the secrecy of the source in order to violate the legal mechanism. The professor’s position is contrary to the understanding of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.
