Until then it was the forum judicum, or visigothic code, that had governed the  judicial action, the organisation and the competence of the courts in the Iberian Peninsula. This code envisaged public action against murderers, without designating particular judges to carry out such action.

During the  monarchy the King's Attorney, mentioned in a charter of the 28th of March 1514, acquired the designation of Attorney-General for the Crown and Treasury. Under the monarchy features were established that lasted a long time, or even became permanent in defining the institutional structure of the Public Prosecution Service.

A decree issued during the First Republic, dated the 8th of October 1910, altered the title Attorney General's Office for the Crown and Treasury to Attorney General's Office for the Republic.

Between 1927 and the 25th of April, 1974 the codification of the judicial system was outlined in Judicial Statutes. Also, the duties of the Public Prosecution Service were fixed, particularly in advisory matters, and the Superior Council of the Public Prosecution Service was created.

The regime that came to power on the 25th of April, 1974 introduced a new Constitution of the Republic, which dealt with the Public Prosecution Service in a separate chapter, and expressly conferred autonomy on it.

Only with king Afonso III did the office of King's Attorney appear. This was a permanent post, and included the right to "call to the king's residence" people who had pleas to make to him.

Although there was not yet a magistracy, the situation was gradually changing  as the authority of private land charters was replaced by regular courts and  general laws were published. Only then were certain inadequacies recognised: the need for establishing a structure to help those who were seeking justice; and the need for defending the general interest.

These developments led to the office of Attorney  for the Justice created during the reign of  João I. The statutes of this office are included in Heading VIII of Book I of the Afonsine codes of laws, published in 1446 or 1447, which state as follows:

"Look, and seek all the acts of Justice, and of the Widows, and the Orphans, and miserable people that come to Our Court".

The Charter of the 28th of March 1514 makes the first reference to  the King's Attorney. It orders that the response to a summons made against the king must be accompanied by an authorisation permit in due form. Headings XI and XII of Book I of the 1521Manueline code of laws specify the duties of the  king's legal attorney (procurador dos feitos do rei); the attorney of the petitions division (promotor da justiça da Casa da Suplicação); and the attorneys of the civil division (promotores da justiça da Casa do Cível). The charter of the 22nd of January 1530 restored the duty of the  king's legal attorneys, both  of the crown and of the treasury, to prosecute, without any need to obtain a special mandate for each case.

According to the Filipine codes of laws, the Petitions Division (Casa da Suplicação)  comprised one Attorney for the Crown's Affaires (procurador dos feitos da coroa), one Attorney for the Tresury's Affairs (procurador dos feitos da fazenda), one Prosecutor  (promotor de justiça) and one Solicitor  (solicitador da justiça. The Oporto Civil Appeals Division (Casa do Cível da Relação do Porto) comprised a Prosecutor and a Solicitor.

Later, the decree of the 21st of August 1637 laid down that the  crown attorney (procurador da coroa) had to be heard where any legal matters were submitted to discussion. 

This development,  notoriously influenced by changes in the political power and strongly linked to the development of institutions like the Casa da Suplicação or the Casa do Cível,  lead to . This has led to the doctrine pursuant to which  the structure of the  Portuguese Public Prosecution Service was not imported from France, but it resulted instead from "the needs  of justice and  circumstances of a certain period".

It can be said that the  transformations that took place up to the middle of the eighteenth century cannot be identified with particular ideological movements. Instead, the coincidences must be construed as the result of the parallel development.

Following the disappearance of Feudalism and the centralisation  of justice, it became necessary to organise the society's representation at the courts or, at least, to implement a system of  initiative  or public action. Consequently the Public Prosecution Service came to light. Naturally, its form showed some characteristics resembling the jurisdictions whereby it operated and reflected features imported from identical models of political power.

This trend swept through Europe. England was the only country where the principle of popular action was kept, and where the structure put in practice had no links with the  continental Public Prosecution Services. Although there followed a slow  approximation in England to the continental model, the  English law remained faithful to the idea that crown lawyers (later Public Prosecutors) should only intervene in serious cases where  the public order defended and guaranteed by the monarch was being threatened.

With the establishment of the liberal regime and the granting of the Constitutional Charter,  the Public Prosecution Service was reorganised. The Act of the 12th of November 1822 did not come into force only due to  the absolutist reaction.

A few years later a Regency Decree issued  in the Terceira Island created a justice commission (junta de justiça) which  should bear the criminal and civil powers  that the kingdom's ordenances and laws had granted to appeal courts. The Decree of the 30th of June, 1830, created the office of Royal Attorney (procurador régio) to observe, within the commission, the charges produced and  promote the carrying out of decisions. The same decree also stated  that there would be promotores de justiça placed at  lower courts, who would bear  analogous functions to those of the Royal Attorney.

The Public Prosecution Service was definitively organised by Decree 24, of the 16th of May 1832, known as the "judicial reform decree". The regent D. Pedro, Duke of Bragança, signed it in Ponta Delgada on behalf of  the Queen D. Maria II.

This diploma was a milestone in the history of the Public Prosecution Service, . It was the responsibility of Mouzinho da Silveira, at the time Minister and Secretary of State for the Justice Affairs. He created the Supreme Court of Justice, and, attached to this court, the post of Attorney-General (then called Attorney General for the Crown) . It was set forth that "the person nominated for this post will forthwith be considered a member of the Supreme Court".

 Subsequently a Royal Attorney would be appointed at each second level court having " the same rank and salary of the members of the court". A Deputy Royal Attorney would also be placed at each lower court, with the possiblity to  be promoted subsequently to  judge. In addition, each judicial district would have a Sub-Deputy  Royal Attorney, a person chosen and entrusted by the Deputy.

The decree 27, of the 19th of May of the same year, developed this new structure. It defined in detail the statute of the Attorney-General for the Crown: his powers by the Supreme Court of Justice were identical to those of  the Royal Attorneys by the second instance court, "both in the crown's interests, and in the public treasury's interests". The Attorney-General was superior in rank to the Royal Attorneys, and, in addition to his responsibilities by the Supreme Court, he would also:  supervise the charges brought before the Chamber of Peers (Câmara dos Pares); intervene, as representative of the government, in the Chambers (Câmaras), for which purpose he had a seat on the ministers' bench; advise on transactions when directed to do so by the government; assist the Chambers by advising them on legislative matters.

Most of the features of this new  structure  lasted for a long time, or even became permanent. They differed from the models applied in other countries, and thus permitted their creators  to maintain the idiosyncratic characteristics of the Portuguese model of Public Prosecution Service. From  these features we stress the  organisation of Public Prosecutors in a hierarchy (from the Sub-Deputy up to the Attorney-General for the Crown), in contrast to comparable systems (such as those applied in France and Italy) where relationships with the government are established  directly between the Minister of Justice and the intermediate levels; the  advisory support given to the government and the Chambers; and the preliminary characteristic of a post by a lower court  whereby a deputy could attain the post of judge.

The decree dated the 15th of December 1835 governed the Public Prosecution Service  and seth forth a set of procedural rules,  including the unity obligation , having confirmed most of  the rules on hierarchy that had been published in 1832. As regards the principle of unity, the statutes laid down that the Royal Attorneys by each court should  hold a meeting in council every month. They could invite to these meetings the Deputies from the district capital, in order to define the position of the Public Prosecution Service in borderline cases. The Attorney-General had to be informed of the decision taken.

The mechanisms used  in order to ensure the unity showed wisdom and an understanding of the particular features of the hierarchy of the Public Prosecution Service most unusual for the time. This was done without detriment to the essentially monocratic character of the Public Prosecution Service- the Attorney-General was informed  of the decisions taken.

The Newest Judicial Reform (Novíssima Reforma Judiciária) contained in the decree of the 21st of May 1841, confirmed the organisation which had meanwhile been outlined.

The posts of the Public Prosecution Service by the Supreme Court of Justice were expressly defined as being fulfiled by the  king's appointment, the persons being "removable at his discretion". The occupants of these posts, coming from the rank of judge, could return to their former posts or occupy those to which they had acceeded.. The direction powers of the Attorney-General were also defined therein. He could give orders and instructions to all his "subordinates". It was also established that "the Attorney-General will maintain the most strict impartiality when discharging his functions, and, as supervisor of the implementation of laws, will always uphold the interests of justice".

Some features of the "Novíssima Reforma Judiciária" are worth special attention. The way it develops principles of organisation and defines the area in which the Public Prosecution Service must act, is particularly interesting. Thus the Attorney-General for the Crown, who is granted the title of councillor alongside the president and judges of the Supreme Court, now has two deputies. The representatives  of the Public Prosecution Service by appeal courts are made movable "at the government's discretion", benefiting from the identical safegard  provison applied to  the Supreme Court. The idea that posts by a lower court are the start of a career is confirmed, and all posts are fulfiled in commission. However, both Deputies with six months experience and Sub-Deputies with one year of experience and a degree in  Law became legal applicants to the Judiciary. The responsibilities of Public Prosecutors are confirmed. The former duties of this Public Prosecution Service showing various facets were  as follows: promotion of legality; defence of the independence of the courts; prosecution; supervision of  justice officers; advisory. The work of the Public Prosecution Service covers all actions involving  the public interest : conflicts of jurisdiction and fields of intervention; proceedings reform; proof of inheritances abroad; evidence and pleas on the allocation of royal property; rewards for services rendered to the state; expropriations; recognition of foreign decisions; costs; proceedings about people's status or about custody. The Public Prosecution Service had to intercede in all actions concerning the persons whom the State is required to protect, and oversee prison premises. In relation to judges and other justice officers, criminal and disciplinary actions comprise the duty, imposed on the Royal Attorneys, of "upon the government's request, going to the place where the judge came from, investigating and informing whether there is a reason to establish blame". When a judge is transferred "the government will choose some members of the Public Prosecution Service from among those who serve on the Supreme Court of Justice, or by the courts of appeal. In the respective regions, these officials will make the due requisitions, and will examine whether in crimes committed, or in any papers or books, there is reason for blame against these judges. They will receive any notifications, complaints of crimes, or be informed of errors of office committed by the concerned judges during the fulfilment of their functions, in order to inform the government of their conclusions.Subsequently, the government  will take action according to the law". Note that judges of law had to be moved every three years.

In addition to the Public Prosecution Service that operated on the mainland and the islands, there were two other structures, each organised separately but with similar structures and internal rules: the Public Prosecution Service in the colonies, controlled by the secretariat of the Navy and Colonial Affairs Ministry (Ministério dos Negócios da Marinha e Ultramar); and the Public Prosecution Service of the Office for the  Litigious Matters (contencioso administrativo). The main decrees that governed the organisation of the Public Prosecution Service in the colonies at that time were those dated: 7th of December 1836, 16th of January 1837, 30th of December 1852, 1st of December 1866, 20th of February and 6th of December 1867, 17th and 18th of November 1869, 1st of December 1869, 17th of December 1869, 14th of November 1878, 5th of August 1881, 20th of February 1894, and, a few years later, decrees 2 and 3 of the 16th of July and the 2nd of August 1902, and decrees of the 28th of March 1905, and the 23rd of August 1906.

Among later reforms, two deserve a particular reference. Given an increase in paperwork, the decree of the 5th of November 1851 laid down that the Attorney-General's work would be channeled to a private secretariat. The decree of the 12th of November 1869 transferred to the Attorney-General for the Crown the duties formerly discharged by the  Attorney General for the Treasury. This  office had been created by a decree of the 30th of December 1836, with the duty to "defend the legitimate and understood rights of the Public Treasury". Thus it was created the post of Attorney General for the Crown and Treasury assisted by six assistants.

The decree set forth  that the Attorney-General would normally meet twice a month  with his assistants "to present, discuss, and vote on the doubtful questions that each may have". The prevailing opinion should be followed and justified by replies, reports or subsequent deliberations.

Shortly thereafter, by means of the decree of the 9th of June 1870, duties that had been discharged by the administrative section of the Council of State were transferred to the Attorney-General, in consultation with his assistants.

With few exceptions, the alterations  introduced between 1870 and the end of the century merely concerned details. The act of the 16th of April 1874 suppressed the posts of Sub-Deputies placed by the  ordinary judges, and determined that their duties would be discharged by the Deputy Royal Attorney, or by any other person on whom he delegated. The decree of the 29th of July 1886 created Sub-Deputies to work with municipal judges, or, in the counties, to assist and replace the Deputy  Royal Attorneys. The decree of the 25th of November 1886 returned the consultative functions to the Supreme Administrative Court. There were other decrees dated the 29th of March 1890, and the 23rd of December 1897.

The major reorganisation of the Public Prosecution Service was effected by the decree of the 24th of October 1901.

The preamble of this statutory diploma was written by Councillor Campos Henriques, who  was Minister and Secretary of State for the  Ecclesiastical Affairs and Justice at that time. He impressively describes the goals of the reorganisation:

"Sir, for many years the need for reorganising the magistracy of the Public Prosecution Service has been recognised in this country.

"Descriptions of its own functions are scattered in various laws and decrees: the regulation of the 15th of December 1835; the Novíssima Reforma Judicial; the decree of the 16th of January 1843; the Code of Civil Procedure (Codigo do Processo Civil); the decrees of the 29th of March 1890; and in many other ministerial decisions.

The high and complex mission of the Public Prosecution Service covers a vast area: representation of society before the courts; defence of national property; charging and prosecution  of crimes; protection of the disabled; enforcement of debts to the state; scrupulous and constant supervision of the enforcement of the laws; and the difficult and important duty of advising the government.

Sir, this list suffices to prove the importance that a well-organised society attaches to this magistracy. A great consultant on public law and legislator said 'it is the instrument of the law, the supervisor of jurisprudence, the help and consolation of the  weak, the terrible accuser of evil, the safeguard of the public interest against ever reappearing pretensions of the private interests; and, finally, it is somehow a representative of the entire social corpus.'

In our country the Public Prosecutors do not enjoy the guarantees  corresponding to the services that they render. In addition, their diverse and complex set of duties is barely  defined. Frequently it is not certain whether the action of the Public Prosecution Service is compulsory or not, or whether it should intervene as the principal agent or as an accessory.

"In 1860 the eminent consultant on public law and statesman Mártens Ferrão presented a law to parliament. Without altering the temporary nature of the Public Prosectuors' appointments, it intended to protect  them from eventualities only determined by the whim of a government.

"Later, Councillor Veiga Beirão accepted an amendment, proposed by the Chamber of Deputies of Parliament, to his excellent proposal. This, one can say, governed the feature whereby Public Prosecutors could be removed or transferred.

"In 1890, the illustrious statesman Lopo Vaz de Sampaio e Mello improved salaries earned by Deputy  Royal Attorneys. In the report that preceded this remarkable decree, he discussed justice and the need for increasing salaries of other members of the legal class.

"Unfortunately, this promise could not be honoured, since none of the mentioned bills became law.

"It becomes necessary to sanction the possible guarantees; to improve  the situation of the members without prejudice to the present Treasury; to define the rights and  obligations.

"Governments of all political tendencies have confirmed this need. The government tries to comply therewith on the basis of studies done and conclusions achieved. These have come from the wisest professionals who have dealt with the subject, as well as from parliamentary commissions that have examined the material available and  have given their opinion on it..."

The decree of 1901 brought about a major revision of the Public Prosecution Service's role and mode of operation.

The most important innovations included:

Specific procedures in view of the  dismissal and suspension of the Public Prosecutors . They acquired the guarantee that they could not be suspended or dismissed without a hearing with the officer concerned and with the Superior Council of the  Public Prosecution Service.

Dismissal could only be ordered for one of the following reasons:

1. clear breach of the law;

2. disobedience, or failure to obey orders;

3. negligence or omission, resulting in the public interest or the service being jeopardised;

4. irregular procedure that makes the discharging of duties impossible.

To ensure sufficient "professional training", the previous system of recruitment was replaced. Until then it had been possible for those  who were not magistrates to become assistants to the  Attorney-General, Royal Attorneys, assistants to the  Royal Attorneys, or Secretaries by the  Attorney-General's Office for the Crown  or by the  Royal Attorneys' Offices. In a significant innovation, recruitment for these posts started to be made only from and among Judges or Public Prosecutors.

At the same time, both the rules for classification of Public Prosecutors were adopted, and access mechanisms were adopted that were similar to those already existing for the Judiciary. The first appointment of Public Prosecutors would be to third class counties; subsequently they would rise to second and first class counties, according to seniority and distinction "in order to reward merit, but without ignoring length of service".

The statutory diploma defined a disciplinary system parallel to that of the Judiciary. TheSuperior Council of the  Public Prosecution Service was set up, consisting of the Attorney-General for the Crown and Treasury, as president, his three  senior assistants, and the  secretary. The later acted as secretary to the Council , and did not have a right to vote.

This Council performed the following tasks:

1. it fixed the seniority of  the Public Prosecutors;

2. it examined appeals laid down  by Public Prosecutors on the subject of seniority;

3. it gave advice in reply to questions on his duties produced by the Attorney-General for the Crown and Treasury;

4. it advised on the course that the Public Prosecution Service should follow in borderline cases, with a view to establishing uniformity of procedures;

5. it produced grounded opinions, where consulted on the dismissal or suspension of  Public Prosecutors;

6. it gave advice on the retirement of  Public Prosecutors;

7. without prejudice to the government's area of competence, it ordered investigations into the Public Prosecutors' conduct;

8. it gave opinions on a particular subject when asked to do so by the government.

The 1901 decree defined other principles. One of them forbade senior Public Prosecutors to give orders that did not comply with the law; it gave subordinates the right of respectful objection, and, if an order was maintained, the right to inform the government of the principle stating that the Public Prosecution Service was  parallel to  the Judiciary and independent from it. Other principles coveredthe areas of  movability, hierarchy, and responsibility.

It was determined that the appointment of the Attorney-General for the Crown and Treasury would be made from amd among the  following posts: judges of any rank; senior  Public Prosecutors; university professors of law; or consultants on public law of recognised status.

The Attorney-General for the Crown and Treasury  would be assisted by  eight assistants, two of them being assistants by  the Supreme Administrative Court.

The advisory functions were distributed, according to the subjects in question, to the Attorney-General, acting on his own ( (article 46, nº 2); to the council formed by the Attorney General and his assistants (article 52); to the council of  royal supervisors (article 56); and to the Superior Council of the  Public Prosecution Service (article 135).

At each of the  Royal Attorneys' Offices in Lisbon and Oporto, operated a Council of the  Royal Attorney's Office, composed of  the respective  Royal Attorney, who presided thereto, his assistant, the two  senior assistants from the seat of the appeal court, the  senior guardian-general of orphans, and the secretary to the Royal Attorney's Office, who acted as secretary to the Council. The previous system of communication of the deliberations to the Attorney-General for the Crown and Treasury was maintained. Still, the Council had to  be heard when suspension of any Public Prosecutor was proposed.

The deputies to  the Attorney General for the Crown were considered to have the same rank as the  judges of the second instance.

The auditor of the Public Credit Commission (Junta de Crédito Público)was integrated into the Public Prosecution Service, his duties being stipulated in the decree of the 8th of October 1900.

It was accepted that the Deputy Royal Attorneys might renounce to the posts in the Judiciary,  to which they were "legal candidates".

Finally it is  worth noting the remark made by Campos Henriques to the  preamble of the statutory diploma, when he brought up the question of the  Public Prosecutors' salaries in strong terms:

"Without exception, their remuneration is that of fifty years ago, surcharged now by deductions, which range from ten to twenty percent".

Dr. Afonso Costa,  Minister of Justice and future President of the ministry,  signed the diploma.

On the 24th of October 1910 a decree was published that extinguished the appeal court of the Azores, its  District Attorney's Office, and four posts of assistants to the  Attorney General.

From this date until 1927, the  codifying work on the Public Prosecution Service was almost nule . The judicial organisation was still basically governed by the Novíssima Reforma Judiciária. However, as Barbosa de Magalhães vigorously stated, this had been "torn, patched, darned, enlarged by an infinity of later statutory diplomas".

The balance of the 1st Republic is translated into  a series of frustrated attempts to reform the judicial system, which  included the bills introduced by the  Members of Parliament  Mesquita Carvalho (1912), Abraão de Carvalho (1915) Catanho de Menezes (1916), and by the  Judge Alfeu Cruz (1918).

The  little importance granted to the Public Prosecution Service in the 1911 Constitution shows how restricted  its significance was  within the subject of justice. In general, the  references to that magistracy were mere details, except for the bills of the MP   Machado dos Santos (who was in favour of the separation between the Judiciary and the Public Prosecution Service); the MP Boto-Machado (who proposed the introduction of a special chapter dedicated to the Public Prosecution Service,  the Attorney-General becoming the people's speaker (tribuno do povo) while exercising his powers by  the Câmara dos Censores  - guardians of the Constitution.

Meanwhile, separated acts of legislation were published, from which the following directly affected the Public Prosecution Service:  decree nº 1499, of the 13th of April 1915 (which established the sexénio, a time limit of six years in any post, and imposed on the Public Prosecutors the need  for becoming candidates to the Judiciary) ; decrees nºs 3786 and 3950, of the 30th of January and 21st of March 1918 respectively (which prevented  the Public Prosecutors from renouncing to posts in the Judiciary); decree nº 4172, of the 30th of April 1918 (which reorganised the Supreme Council of the Public Prosecution Service); decrees nºs 3968, of the 25th of May, and 4433, of the 20th of June 1918, respectively (concerning  salaries and replacement of Public Prosecutors); decree nº 5069, of the 24th of December 1918, (providing for the representation of  the Public Prosecution Service by the auxiliary judges of criminal investigation in Lisbon and Oporto); decree nº 5265, of the 19th of March 1919, (on competition). The laws nº 863, of the 23rd of August 1919, nº 981, of the 2nd of June 1920, and nº 1001, of the 29th of July 1920 dealt with the salaries. There were also various statutory diplomas governing matters on salaries and expenses.

The first statute, approved by Decree nº 13809, of the 22nd of June 1927, was the first attempt at codification of the whole judicial system in the 20th century. It brought together in the same text matters on judicial organisation of the territory; the role of the Judges and the Public Prosecutors; the organisation of secretariats, and the staff's role ; the power of attorney for presentation in court (mandato judicial), including the organisation of the Bar; the role of solicitors; and legal aid.

It was a true legal code, whose features were to be followed by future statutes.

As regards the Public Prosecution Service, this Statute  only  developed and perfectioned the provisions set forth  since 1901, which had defined the forms of the institution almost completely.

The Statute contained however some aspects  worth mentioning.

One of them was the  stating of a set of guarantees for Judges, which  were the definitions of the principles of independence, responsibility, and permanence.  Judges were made responsible - in the civil, criminal and disciplinary fields -  for their actions while performing their duties, according to the laws .

The Public Prosecution Service was defined as "the representative of the State, and of society, as well as the guarantor of  the enforcement of the law". Its duties, defined  in previously published  legislation, were also confirmed.

Although the  Statute set forth that the Attorney-General continued to swear and make oath in the presence of the Minister of Justice,  he would take office before the President of the Supreme Court of Justice.

It was also laid down that, by means of a competitive examination, judges were chosen from the first class Deputy  District Attorneys  and from doctors in Law who had  practised the law for at least five years.

The Public Prosecution Service was composed of  the Attorney-General, and his assistants; the auditor of the Public Credit Commission (Junta de Crédito Público); the District Attorneys and their assistants, the Deputy and Sub-Deputy District Attorneys.

The limit of directive powers includes not only cases where the order breaks the law, but also cases where it goes outside the competence of the subordinates.

The rules defining the parallel nature of both the Judiciary and the  Public Prosecution Service are extended.

The  senior  Public Prosecutors , the assistants to the Attorney-General and the auditor of the Public Credit Commission, began to be  recruited from and among 1st. class judges or  judges of the  2nd instance, or lecturers of the Faculty of Law. District Attorneys began to be  appointed from among their assistants, or among 1st class judges. The assistants to the District Attorneys began to be appointed from among secretaries to the Attorney-General's Office or  District Attorneys' Offices, or among  1st class judges.

These provisions completed the structure of the Public Prosecution Service. The idea that the posts of Deputy District Attorney were  the start of a career became even stronger. The Deputies had  to be candidates for the Judiciary,  the higher posts being occupied, as a rule, by judges.

The Attorney-General, who was granted the additional task  to   intervene in proceedings before  the Suerior Council of the Judiciary, would be helped by six assistants.

The  advisory bodies continued to exist, namely the Council of the  Attorney-General's Office, and the Councils of the  District Attorneys' Offices.

In the administrative and disciplinary field, the Statute concentrated on the  Superior Council of the  Judiciary, "as the hierarchically superior body of the judicial power", the powers regarding  the judges, the Public Prosecutors, the officers of justice, the officers of the civil status  registry office, of the land registry, commercial registry office, and of the notary's office. The Council was composed of  the president of the Supreme Court of Justice, who presided thereto, two active voting members  triennially  appointed by the minister of justice, two active voting members elected triennially by the Judiciary  of the mainland and islands. These members  belonged to the  Supreme Court of Justice. Where matters concerned  the Public Prosecutors and officers of the commercial registry office, the  Council was also composed of  the Attorney-General and the District Attorney at the Lisbon appeal court. Where matters related to their respective ranks, the Council would also comprise  two officers of justice, two officers of the land registry office, two officers of the civil status ergistry office, and two notaries public. The functions of the Public Prosecution Service at the Superior Council of the Judiciary are performed by the Attorney-General, or, in proceedings where he was a voting member, by his legal substitute.

The judicial Statute of 1927 was replaced by a new statute, approved by decree nº 15344, of the 10th of April 1928. However, the latter adid not bring changes to the rules that we have mentioned.

The 1928 Statute was successively altered by Decrees nºs 16536, of the 26th of February 1929, 17955, of the 12th of February 1930, 18227, of the 21st of April 1930, 19537, of the 31st of March 1931, 19772, of the 27th of May 1931, and 21253, of the 18th of May 1932.

In 1933, Decree nº 22779, of the 29th of June, introduced important alterations to that statute: it basically altered the system of access to posts in the Supreme Court of Justice; it reformulated the system by which judges in the colonies could move to the mother land; it reclassified the judicial counties; it modified the regime applicable to the secretariats and staff; and it reorganised the Superior Council of the Judiciary.

The extravagant legislation published in the meantime led Barbosa de Magalhães to consider the country "in complete judicial disarray". It must be said, however, that this legislation was very timid in relation to the Public Prosecution Service.

Barbosa de Magalhães commented:

"The separation of the Public Prosecution Service  from the Judiciary  had to be completed, but the way decree nº 26156 achieved  this was not a happy one: it disorganised the respective staff; it did not ensure, as  necessary, that the duties of the Public Prosecution Service, particularly at the courts of the second instance and the Supreme Court of Justice, were discharged by competent persons.

"We would have expanded the number of assistants to the Attorney-General, and supressed the posts of auditor or consultant to ministries and public services. We would have placed an assistant to the Attorney-General at each higher court, at each ministry, and at each of the public services. We would have determined  that the person appointed for the office of Attorney-General should be an assistant with more than five years of experience, a professor in a Law Faculty, or a consultant on public law with   recognised merit...

"Thus, for the reasons that have been expounded and known for a long time, the Judiciary  and the Public Prosecution Service  are kept completely separate. Hence the latter is given the importance that it deserves, and the prestige that it requires."

In 1944, decree-law nº 33547, of the 23rd of February, introduced a new judicial statute containing  some innovations for the Public Prosecution Service.

As clarified in the preamble by the Minister of Justice Vaz Serra, it was aimed at defining  clearly the Public Prosecution Service's scope of intervention in legal proceedings. It established that, when the disabled were to be  be represented, the Public Prosecution Service  could be preferred to a legal representative . The  intervention of the Public Prosecution Service would also be required when a public interest was at stake in the proceedings. This followed "the modern trend which states that, where a public interest is  affected,  litigation should not run its course solely according to the private interests involved".

The most important innovations affecting the  Attorney-General's Office were:

a) Except for professors at Law faculties, new District Attorneys would be appointed temporarily . Later they could be appointed permanently;

b) The distinction between assistants to the Attorney-General and to the District Attorneys was suppressed;

c) The  Attorney-General's Office was given the task of commenting on the content of legislative diplomas, in cases where the government decided to consult it. For this purpose it could require the contribution of  reputable experts.

The Attorney-General would take office in the presence of the Minister of Justice, and he would have  seven assistants.

The Councils of the District Attorneys' Offices were extinguished.

Disciplinary actions relating to the Public Prosecution Service continued to be taken by the Superior Council of the Judiciary,  whose composition and powers had evolved since its creation.

In 1962 there was a new judicial statute, approved by decree-law nº 44278, of the 14th of April, and later altered by decree-laws nºs 44959, 45732, 46140, 47139, and 47691. This statute enlarged considerably the powers of the Public Prosecution Service, particularly its advisory and consultative powers. However, in many areas, particularly the one  concerning the career structure, the statute was a compromise. This fact was  recognised in the preamble to the diploma, written by Antunes Varela.

A problem that seemed to have always been present in the  legislators' minds remained  unsolved, i.e. "the clear separation that should exist" between the Judiciary and the Public Prosecution Service. It was recognised that "the possibility of moving from the Public Prosecution Service to the Judiciary, and vice versa, is not a system likely to promote their professional development". Nevertheless, it was not possible to achieve a significant  progress in this area, nor even to offer options.

The career structure had  basically been the same  decades over decades.

In its chapter on organisation and guarantees, the diploma set forth  an important number of principles.

The hierarchical relationship of the Public Prosecution Service towards the Ministry of Justice, established since the era when it was founded, was substantiated in powers that the statute explicitly set out:

a) To establish general directives that should be followed by the various organs of the Public Prosecution Service when carrying out their defined functions;

b) To appoint, promote, assign, transfer, and exonerate  Public Prosecutors, and to enforce the disciplinary action against them;

c)To  prescribe functional norms for the Public Prosecutors to comply with  when performing their duties of preventing and suppressing the   criminal activity;

d) To authorise the Public Prosecution Service to plead guilty, agree upon, or give up, in cases in which the state is a party;

e) To clarify questions, and to adopt the steps that, after studying its opinion, the Attorney-General shall propose.

The  Attorney-General's Office was defined as the highest body of the Public Prosecution Service and the "consultative entity of the government in legal matters". The functioning of the consultative council and  the auditors' section (planned in separate diplomas, some of which date from the beginning of the century) were also planned and settled.

According to the statute the opinions issued by the consultative council to general matters, which were  ratified by the ministers who sought the opinions, would  be published in the Official Gazette (Diário do Governo) in order to be regarded by the respective bodies as official interpretations of legal matters which they intended to clarify.

Following a proposal by the Attorney-General the auditors were distributed by the Ministry of Justice among the various ministries. The Statute assigned them the task of consultation on lesser matters. The Attorney-General fixed the extent of their powers as regarded  the importance and complexity of the subjects. They could appeal to a higher court, or send to the consultative council any consultations that had been directed to them. The auditors had to guide the work of the ministries' private legal counsellors. This was done  in addition to the consultancy work directly requested by ministries, and to the  tasks given to them by the Attorney-General.

At that time the Attorney-General had fifteen assistants.

The Superior Council of the Public Prosecution Service was then created by the  Attorney-General's Office, its president being the Attorney-General, and its members being his assistants at the Supreme Court of Justice  and the Appeal Courts. The Council was responsible for  judging on the merit of the  Public Prosecutors; carrying out the disciplinary action; collaborating with the Ministry of Justice to direct and perfect the institutions of the Public Prosecution Service; and co-ordinating  the duties of the Public Prosecutors.

The statute of 1962, successively modified during the years until 1972, closed the cycle of judicial statutes. A new chapter in the legal history of the country was opened with the Movement of the 25th of April 1974.

Notwithstanding sporadic efforts prior to  the publication of the diplomas that have been mentioned hereabove,  the work done by lawyers and political scientists on legal questions during the Estado Novo was scarse.

At the beginning of the 1970s there was some discussion concerning this  problem, due  to the altered political conditions and to the deepening of the social and ideological debate, brought about by the weakening of the regime.

 The parliamentary discussion of a bill on the judicial organisation played an important role; the alternatives presented by the Member of Parliament Sá Carneiro were rejected by the House .

There were then two currents of thought.

One, predominant among the members of the Magistracy, was in favour of  a strongly organisational analysis. It dealt with specific  problems of the  Magistracy as a jurisdictional , administrative, and disciplinary institution: self-government, the specific features of the Magistracy in relation to the bureaucratic staff, recruiting, and remuneration. In some cases the approach came close to a certain "priestly" conception of the Magistracy.

In the political area, Sá Carneiro's project synthesised the  different tendencies in justice that could be found: extinction of the plenary courts; guarantees of the effective independence of judges; and self-government of the Magistracy.

Curiously, references to the Public Prosecution Service were still scarse, except for scattered points on the need for separating it from the Judiciary. Contributing to this situation were the fact  that the Public Prosecution Service was the start of a  career on the one hand, and that the problems of the control of the criminality and the power limits  played an insignifcant role in an authoritarian regime .

At that time  the Ministry of Justice, led by Minister Salgado Zenha, created commissions for the  judicial reform, which played  a relevant role in listing the problems of the organisation and functioning of justice.

The discussion of the proposal for the courts took up seven sessions of the Parliament.

The debate was interspersed with ideological and political references that sometimes ignored the requirements of organisation and practicability. A strong example thereof  is  the case of both the Examining Magistrates (the  model  adopted was already in crisis in other systems), and  the participation in the administration of justice (the utopic list approved comprised the jury, a people's judge and "other ways of popular participation in the administration of justice".

Each of the various political parties  had its own project: those of the Socialist Party and Communist Party tended to be neutral and general; those of the Democratic Popular Party (Partido Popular Democrático) and the MPD-CDE featured a substantial and innovating group of suggestions; those of the Democratic and Social Centre (Centro Democrático e Social -  (CDS) was traditionalist, in the sense that it  limited itself to introducing  the ingredients necessary for its democratisation into the former system. The UDP did not separately look at the question of the courts.

An appreciation  of the Public Prosecution Service by the Parliament would not gain much in view of the  constitutional precedents that were nule or of little significance.

The idea that the Public Prosecution Service was a branch of the  executive power, infused with a tradition of approximation to the  government power was added to the  genetic heritage of the institution as a way  to deny it a place in the constitutional geography.

The 1976 Constitution reversed this trend. The Public Prosecution Service was granted its own chapter and an innovating statute , although somewhat ambiguous.

The members of Parliament wished to reinforce the independence of the administration of justice by perfecting the organisation of the Public Prosecution Service. But in reality, this was not accompanied by a realistic view of the interfaces that existed between judicial organisation and the criminal procedure, namely the delicate problem of the procedural guarantees and  the role and extent of authority of the Magistracy.

In defining the role of the Public Prosecution Service, the 1976 Constitution only  stated that it "enjoys its own statute"-article 224. This clearly shows the difficulties the members of Parliament felt  to develop the idea of "autonomy" comprised in the bill subject to discussion.

Another uncertainty, again understandable, was accrued thereto when considering the need for, or the suitability of , giving autonomy to a powerful body, whose  correct integration within the organisation of the state was not agreed upon. One party stated that the notion "autonomous body" was not only imprecise, butit  could be an inappropriate indication for a future legislative assembly. This explanation is quite understandable within the context of the time.

As regarded the  statute of the Public Prosecutors the members of Parliament clearly defined some principles .

On the one hand, the Constitution set forth  that "the Public Prosecutors are responsible, hierarchically subordinated , and they may not be transferred, suspended, retired, or discharged except in cases defined by law". On the other hand, it gave the Attorney-General's Office the powers to  "nominate, assign, transfer, and promote  the Public Prosecutors, and to take the disciplinary action".

These principles, falling within article 225, thus incorporated into the Constitution features that already existed in previous legislation, such as the  hierarchy and  the responsibility. However they also introduced a new guarantee called  stability, to distinguish it from "inamovability", the identical prerogative applied to the  judges.

In the same way, the idea that the Public Prosecution Service corresponded to a separate branch within the Magistracy  was incorporated into the Constitution. Anyway, this was already accepted by  the secular tradition of the country.

The granting of the powers of supervision and discipline over the Public Prosecutors  to the Attorney-General's Officeacquired an autonomous dimension  implicitly recognised by the Constitution. In this way the organisational dependence of the government disappeared.

The Constitution also stated that the Attorney-General's Office was "the highest body of the Public Prosecution Service, and  it is presided over by the Attorney-General", thus confirming the organisational orientation to which we have referred. The hierarchy culminated in the   Attorney-General's Office, as far as the management and the discipline were concerned (later we shall see the implications of this concept for the directive powers).

The Constitution delegated  the rules of organisation and composition of the  Attorney-General's Office on the ordinary law.

The Attorney-General was appointed by the President of the Republic, upon a proposal by the government (Article 136, paragraph 1).

The Public Prosecution Service was dealt with in  a chapter (number IV) of Heading VI, on the courts. Even if this did not allow a definitive conclusion as to the institution's nature, it enables us to measure the intentions of the members of the Parliament and to assess their concepts.

While setting the existence of independent  bodies of management and discipline for the Judiciary and the Public Prosecution Service, the new constitutional regime  provided,  if not a directive, at least an important suggestion for structuring the two branches of the Magistracy with separate careers. Besides, statements made by some members of the Parliament had touched  this idea.

To comply with these provisions, the government proposed to the Parliament the approuval  of an organisational law for the   Attorney-General's Office, which did not even come to  discussion.

Shortly thereafter , Decree-Law nº 917/76, of the 31st of December was approved, following a legislative authorisation.

The aim of this diploma was to put constitutional principles in practice.

The  Attorney-General's Office became in charge of the  supervising and  disciplinary action through the Superior Council of the Public Prosecution Service, which comprised the ex officio members from the Office, elected members, and members appointed by the Minister of Justice.

It was created the post of Vice Attorney-General.

An inspection service was also implemented.

The secretariat was reorganised in view of  the new responsibilities.

On the 1st of June 1978 Parliament approved the Statute of the Public Prosecution Service, published on the 5th of July, under  Act number 39/78. According to this Act the Public Prosecution Service's proper career  was confirmed, i.e., it stopped to be a creer leading to the Judiciary. In this way, a new and different system of organisation was defined.

At the same time it was expressly stated that the Public Prosecution Service enjoyed autonomy with respect to other bodiesregardless their central, regional, or local features.

Act nº 39/78 was replaced by Act nº 47/86, of the 15th of October, which merely modified certain details, essentially aiming at making features of the roles of the Judiciary and Public Prosecution Service similar.

We shall analyse the  streamlinesconsolidated by these diplomas  when describing their principal aspects.

Wwe wish to make a final comment on the history of the institution.

Although it has been subject to reservations, both doctrinal and  functional, the autonomous experience of the Public Prosecution Service proved to be positive. The balance was translated into a reinforcement of the general opinion in favour of  the independence of the administration of justice and  of a greater separation of the subsystems of the judicial world. During periods of deep political and ideological activity, and of fierce inter-party struggle,  the impartiality of the Public Prosecution Service  ( traditionally suspected - along with the Judiciary - of compromising with political power) succeeded in remaining untouched.

This fact strongly contributed to the constitutionalisation of the Public Prosecution Service autonomy performed during the second constitutional revision (1989). The Superior Council of the Public Prosecution Service began to include members appointed by Parliament.

The principles approved in this revision were incorporated afterwards in Act nº 23/92, of the 20th of August.