The former president () defended on Friday (7) the revocation of the Clean Record Law, which would benefit himself.
There is today a proposal presented by Deputy Bibo Nunes (PL-RS) in the House amending the Clean Record Law to decrease the eight to two years. The new president of the house, (-PB), said on Friday that the deadline today of the law is “extensive”, but said he had no commitment to change the legislation.
“The Clean Record Law serves just for this, pursuing right. Final point. I am radical, ideal would be to revoke this law that will not persecute anyone else. And who decides whether to elect or not you, not a person here in Brasilia. You know who I’m talking about, “Bolsonaro said on social networks.
“We are working for this limit from eight to two years of ineligibility. Then yes I could compete in the elections in 2026 and you will decide whether to vote for me or not,” he added.
Condemned by the (Superior Electoral Court), one on a meeting with ambassadors and another on the acts of September 7, 2022 ,. Nevertheless, he follows.
In addition, if processed and convicted of crimes linked to the coup plot, Bolsonaro can take one and stay.
While Bibo Nunes’s proposal only deals with the ineligibility for condemnation of the Electoral Justice for abuse of power, the revocation of the Clean Record Law, as Bolsonaro suggests, would imply that a number of other hypotheses of ineligibility would cease to exist.
It is in this law that it appears that convicted by a collegiate body will be ineligible for eight years after serving the sentence. For now convicted only by the TSE, Bolsonaro still faces a series of criminal investigations that can also make him ineligible and even longer.
In post on Thursday (6), Bibo Nunes had stated that “eight years is time that allows a lot of injustice and the corrupt politician should go to jail and not just get ineligible.” “Criminal has to go to jail and there is ineligible to the natural,” wrote the parliamentarian.
In Friday’s video, Bolsonaro said he himself voted favorable to the Clean Record Law proposal, but today she pursues the right. He cited as examples the cases of the former president () and the president (PT) as alleged bad examples of the application of the measure.
Neither of them, however, was ineligible reversed with the Clean Record Law. Lula was able to compete because all his cases were annulled by decision of the (Federal Supreme Court). Already Dilma was the target of, but maintained political rights, in a decision in the plenary of the Federal Senate.
The proposal to review part of the law was presented by the Bolsonarist Deputy last year. In an interview with a Paraíba radio, Hugo Motta said that the theme has returned to the debate because it has as its backdrop the 2026 presidential election and has no commitment to guide this proposal.
“I have no commitment to guide to change the Clean Record Law. If this subject is taken to the House, for example, by PL, we will deal with any project that comes to home. We will discuss responsibly, divide decisions with The college of leaders to see if this subject should be prioritized or not, “he said.
He said he personally assesses that the period of eight years of ineligibility is “extensive time.” “In a democratic system that has an election every two years, you don’t find an extensive time of penalty eight years is not to recognize the democratic system.”
Motta said, however, that this initiative will not depart from it.
“The mayor is a referee, nor votes to vote. People who will defend this change are that they have to bring the arguments to the college of leaders, to the house. that will arrive.
In the event that it actually approves a rule by changing the Clean Record Law, as the former president’s ally proposed, a precedent of the Supreme Court indicates that the Court would have to go against its previous understanding to veto that former President Bolsonaro benefit of change.
This is because, if the project is actually approved, it should generate a discussion as to whether or not the rule may be applied retroactively to proceedings judged still under a previous rule.
The hypothesis in which the Supreme would not have to look over this aspect would be whether, before, the Court dismissed action on the eventual new law, declaring it unconstitutional.
