On the 21st, Miguel Arruda was constituted argued on suspicion of luggage theft at Lisbon airport, and that same day the PSP searched the deputy’s homes in São Miguel and Lisbon.
The Assembly of the Republic has already received the request of the Central Criminal Investigation Court to hear as defendant Miguel Arruda, deputy elected by the Azores, told Lusa Source Parliamentary.
The same source said that the request of the Central Criminal Investigation Court has already went to the Parliamentary Commission of Transparency, to whom it will now, in the next two weeks, to authorize the survey of Miguel Arruda’s parliamentary immunity.
The case of bags
On the 21st, Miguel Arruda was constituted defendant by, and that same day the PSP searched the deputy’s homes in São Miguel and Lisbon.
At issue are suspected of qualified theft crimes and against property. Miguel Arruda will have stolen bags of the luggage rugs of the arrivals of Lisbon airport while traveling from the Azores at the beginning of the weeks of parliamentary work.
The PSP indicated that the arrival deputy was not soon detained, because first it was necessary to survey his parliamentary immunity. An interpretation that several deputies contacted by the agency Lusa considered “debatable”. That is, according to this interpretation, Miguel Arruda could have been arrested in the act on the 21st.
Detached from the arrival
In the specific situation of Miguel Arruda, who since Friday of last week has become the condition as an unjustled deputy, detaching himself from the arrival bench, the lifting of his parliamentary immunity may be automatic if the suspicion of qualified theft is confirmed.
According to the Statute of Deputies, the suspension is mandatory when it comes to “willful crime corresponding to prison penalty whose maximum limit is more than three years”.
Article 11 refers to the following: “No deputy may be arrested or arrested without permission of the Assembly, except for a willful crime corresponding to prison penalty whose maximum limit is more than three years and in the blatant offense.”
Then adds that “Deputies cannot be heard as declarants or as defendants without authorization from the Assembly, being mandatory the decision of authorization, in the second case, when there is strong indications of commitment of intentional crime to which the prison sentence whose prison maximum limit exceeds three years.
