Whether Parliament Truly Holds the Power to Override Parts of the Law Even If They Are Found Unconstitutional

Portugal’s Nationality Law Reform: Super-Majority, Constitutional Review, and the Battle Ahead

Portugal’s sweeping nationality-law reform has stepped into a defining moment. Backed by a large parliamentary majority, the legislation is now under preventive review by the Constitutional Court (TC). The heart of the debate revolves around a rare constitutional mechanism that allows Parliament to “confirm” a law even after the Court labels it unconstitutional.

This raises an essential question for the nation: Does Parliament truly have the power to override the Court’s objections? And do the supporting parties actually have the numbers to do it?

What the Law Changed

Parliament approved major revisions to Portugal’s nationality framework, including:

• Increasing the general naturalisation requirement from 5 to 10 years
• Setting a 7-year path for CPLP and EU nationals
• Introducing a Portuguese language and civic-integration test
• Allowing loss of nationality for naturalised citizens in certain circumstances

These measures were wrapped into two decrees: one amending the nationality law, the other altering the Penal Code to include nationality loss as an accessory penalty.

The Power of the Super-Majority

Under the Portuguese Constitution, nationality law is an organic law — a category requiring a higher voting threshold.
When Parliament approves such a law by at least two-thirds of the deputies, something unusual happens:

Parliament gains the right to confirm the law even if the Constitutional Court finds it unconstitutional.

This “confirmation mechanism” means:

• Parliament can re-approve the challenged articles
• Once reconfirmed with a two-thirds vote,
• The Constitutional Court cannot review or strike those articles again
• The President cannot send them back for further review
• The law becomes binding despite the Court’s earlier objection

This mechanism exists to balance democratic legitimacy with judicial oversight — but it is rarely invoked because it requires a strong and united super-majority.

Do the Supporting Parties Have That Majority?

Yes — at the time of approval, they did.

The Assembly has 230 seats.
Two-thirds requires 153 votes.
The nationality reform received 157 votes in favour.

The parties that supported the reform were:

• PSD
• CDS-PP
• Chega
• Iniciativa Liberal
• JPP

Together, they crossed the threshold comfortably.

However, it is one thing to vote together once — and another to stand united after a Constitutional Court ruling. If the TC strikes down key articles and the political climate changes, maintaining the same coalition for a second two-thirds vote could prove harder.

 The TC’s 25-Day Clock

Because the President received formal requests for a preventive review, the Constitutional Court now has up to 25 days to issue a decision. While the Court deliberates:

• The President cannot promulgate the law
• The law cannot enter into force
• All nationality processes that depend on these new rules remain in uncertainty

The possible outcomes are:

1. The TC considers the law constitutional

The President then promulgates it. The law enters into force normally.

2. The TC finds partial unconstitutionality

Parliament must decide whether to amend those parts —
or invoke the extraordinary confirmation power.

3. The TC finds the law broadly unconstitutional

This would force deeper negotiations or radical amendments, unless the supporting bloc again uses its super-majority to confirm the law.

Parliament does indeed hold the constitutional power to override the Constitutional Court — but only under rare, special conditions and only when backed by a rock-solid super-majority. In this case, the numbers were there at the moment of approval. Whether they will hold through the turbulence of a TC ruling is another question entirely.