There is no unconstitutionality in the PCFR law for Teachers - PM
As is public knowledge, the President of the Republic requested the Constitutional Court (TC) to carry out a preventive assessment of the constitutionality of some provisions of the legislative act of the National Assembly that approved the Career, Functions and Remuneration Plan (PCFR) and the Teaching Staff Statute.
The President of the Republic understood that there was unconstitutionality in number 6 of article 6, in number 6 of article 9 and in number 2 of article 20 of the Law that approves the Career, Functions and Remuneration Plan and establishes the Teaching Staff Statute.
In the view of the President of the Republic, such rules, by giving differentiated treatment to teachers with a degree in relation to teachers without a degree and to teachers in active service in relation to teachers in elected, political, management or special staff positions, offended the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic. The President of the Republic also understood that paragraph 2 of article 20 of the diploma violated the principle of exclusive competence of the Government in regulatory matters.
Now, the Government, as is also public, maintained from the outset that there was no sign of unconstitutionality; that both the legislative act itself, as well as the PCFR and the Teaching Staff Statute scrupulously respected constitutional principles.
In the same sense, the TC expressly noted that the President of the Republic did not provide sufficient reasons in his request for assessment of constitutionality.
Regarding the alleged violation of the principle of equality, the TC was categorical: “it follows that the law on the PCFR for Teaching Staff does not violate the principle of equality and the right not to be harmed in placement, career, employment or public or private activity, nor in the social benefits to which one is entitled, for holding public office or exercising one's political rights as provided for in the Constitution”.
In fact, it is the settled case law of the TC that differential treatment does not mean a violation of the principle of equality, since this occurs when the difference in treatment does not have a rationally understandable motivation, when the differential treatment translates into pure discrimination. Now, the government's proposal treated differently what was different and for this reason had an understandable motivation: the qualification of teaching and the valorization of the teaching function.
Therefore, the TC declared that “there is no sign of constitutionally intolerable unequal treatment that could justify a judgment of censure through a ruling on the unconstitutionality of the disputed rule when confronted with the right to equality”.
The TC also decided not to issue any pronouncement of unconstitutionality regarding the provision of the act of the National Assembly due to alleged violation of the principle of exclusive regulatory competence of the Government.
The President of the Republic made use of the power granted to him by the Constitution to request preventive assessment, through an Opinion from the TC.
The TC's response was clear and assertive, declaring the full compliance of the PCFR Law and the Teaching Staff Statute with the Constitution of the Republic, fully justifying the arguments put forward by the Government over the last few months.
Fortunately, teachers will have the PCFR and its Statute, with clear advantages in terms of pay and career.
