| Resumo: | Article 21.º of the current version of the Portuguese Constitution, under the heading "Right of resistance", states that "everyone has the right to withstand any order that offends his rights, freedoms and guarantees and to repulse by force any aggression, when it is not possible to appeal to public authority. " With implicit references from ancient Greece, the Right of Resistance became an integral part of the portuguese constitutional text from the Constitution of 1838, constituting a tool available to citizens to restore justice, in situations that violate their rights, freedoms and guarantees. Constitutional law, codified by the Constitution, embodies a set of principles and norms that regulate the State as a whole (its people, territory and political power), and regulates what is life in society. In a State of Democratic Right, a constant balance must be struck between the regular functioning of the State and the maintenance of citizens rights, freedoms and guarantees. An action to resist only excludes the unlawfulness, if it is proven that the violation occurred as a way of replacing those rights, freedoms and guarantees, unjustly violated. Faced with this situation is the individual who is responsible for the invocation of resistance, as well as the consequences of a contrary interpretation, subjecting the citizen to a possible conviction for a crime such as Disobedience or the crime of Resistance and coercion on Employee. In the constitutional texts of the countries of the Community of Portuguese Speaking Countries, Angola, Guiné-Equatorial, Guiné-Bissau and São Tomé e Príncipe, they do not have any reference to the Right of Resistance, Brasil, does not have this positive right yet however explicitly presents forms of resistance, Cabo Verde and Moçambique allows only passive resistance and Timor-Leste has in its constitutional legislation a text similar to the portuguese Constitution of 1976, in its original version, attached to the Legitimate Defense. As guarantor of the state's public force, security forces treat situations that could harm rights, freedoms and guarantees. These situations manifest themselves in interpretative arbitrariness and the jurisprudence has accompanied this ambiguity.
|
|---|