The summit of wanting to change the choice of commissions as a way to increase control over collegiate, who should be responsible for enduring the allocation of R $ 11.5 billion in
The proposal was presented at a meeting on Thursday (13), attracting interest from some bench leaders, both governors and opposition. However the theme will still be discussed.
The idea is to change the house’s internal regiment so that committee presidents are no longer elected, but indicated by each party’s leaders. This may also allow them to be replaced if they conflict with the leaders or their benches.
In practice, the measure can increase the control of the summit over the presidents, the agenda of each collegiate and the execution of commission amendments.
Today who runs one of the 30 commissions of the house has the stability of a one -year term. No, the president is also elected, although the term is larger, two years old.
According to reports obtained by Sheetthe proposal was presented at the meeting of leaders by Dr. Luizinho (PP-RJ), ally of the president of the house, (-PB). The idea was already discussed before with a narrower group, which has the support of right and left leaders.
The suggestion occurs after a crisis involving commission amendments last year. This mechanism was created to replace the rapporteur amendment, which is criticized for not identifying the parliamentarian responsible for deciding how public money would be spent.
Despite the name, the commission amendments were not voted by the commissions and continued to be indicated by the Chamber summit. The more faithful to the president and the leaders of the parties, the greater the slice that the deputy received. The chairman of the committee was only to pass on to the government the crafts received from the presidency of the house.
Chairman of the National Integration and Regional Integration Commission in 2024, Deputy José Rocha (União-BA) —eumenting the slice for Bahia, his state. The leaders responded with a letter sent directly to the Executive, and Rocha took the case to the (Supreme Court).
Minister Flávio Dino, of the Supreme Court, who had already made decisions to block the execution of parliamentary amendments to the budget until criteria of greater transparency and traceability were created, to investigate the conduct of the Chamber summit.
If the new rule for the command of the commissions was valid, Rocha could have been replaced by another parliamentarian of the same party.
With Dino’s decision, it is now expected that committees will actually be the defining fate of amendments, so their importance and power have increased.
The change in the format of choice of presidents gains weight because Chamber and Senate negotiate with the Supreme Court the release of commission amendments with criteria of more transparency. The way the money will be used would be approved by each committee, after nomination of parties about which programs and cities are priority.
But there are concerns about rebellions and insurgencies in these votes, as distribution is unequal among parliamentarians – and leaders admit that it will be difficult to control 30 commissions and the other 500 deputies. In the current model, with election, any party deputy can launch himself as a single candidate against the official candidacy of the acronym.
Change advocates claim that separate candidacies disrespect the party’s decision on those who are responsible for commanding the commissions.
The division of presidencies is proportional to the size of each bench, but there have been attempts, for example, that the government articulates alternative plates to prevent opponents from being commanded by important commissions and put deputies with greater dialogue with the executive.
They also mention that the measure allows greater control of the commission’s agenda and, thus, prevents the control of the driving of the work.
A leader cited as an example the presidency of Marco Feliciano (PL-SP) at the Human Rights Commission in 2013, and how the clash was size with the left that practically made the discussion of proposals impossible. According to him, with the measure, it is possible to avoid a very radical driving.
In addition, these advocates claim that, in practice, it is the leader who determines who will go to each commission, even if there is election in the collegiate.
PT leader in the House, Deputy Lindberg Farias (RJ) stated that he agrees with the change and criticizes loose candidates for the commissions and the board of directors. “It gives the party more strength and the collective decision,” he said.
The change in the form of choice of commissions will need to go through the House Plenary and there are already resistance from some parties. At the meeting of Thursday, from the College of Leaders, part of the representatives countered the idea, and Motta suggested discussing it at another time.
PSOL leader in the House, Deputy Talíria Petrone (RJ) stated that the change is “very complicated”.
Other leaders said they were privately opposed to change because they understand that this weakens the institution and the prerogatives of deputies to command the committee with greater independence.
In addition, they say that the “low clergy”, the set of deputies with less power, will not accept the change, because it would be the greatest harmed with the proposal.
To approve the change in the regiment of the house, it is necessary to support simple majority, ie 50% of the deputies present in the plenary. According to Motta,
