After Bolsonaro claims that the clean record is used to pursue the right, author of the law says that the norm has no political side; change proposal would face impasses in all 3 powers
Authored by the federal deputy (PL-RS), PLP (Complementary Bill) It seeks to change the 1990, and reduce the time from 8 to 2 years. For experts, as he could make the former president (PL) and at least 3 more members of his eligible party, however, faces low possibilities for success. In addition, the message of “contempt” to the protection model of the electoral process.
The former president said on Tuesday (18.FEV) that the Clean Record Law “It is used to pursue the right”. The speech was said shortly after with the Vanguard Block, opposed to the government, and the same day as.
The 2010 (Clean Record) has made the rules more rigid to prevent convicts for abuse of political and economic power, among other crimes, from disputing the elections. It was she who increased the ineligibility time from 3 to 8 years.
In fact, convicts of the right by the Electoral Justice, such as Jair Bolsonaro, (PL-SP) e (PL-CE), ineligible until 2030, and (PL-SE), ineligible until 2026, would benefit from the change in the norm.
Read more:
However, the lawyer and former judge, author of the Clean Record Law, recalls that the legislation is the same one that made Lula ineligible in 2018, when the TSE (Superior Electoral Court) rejected his candidacy by 6 votes to 1. He states that the law of its authorship has no political side.
“The Clean Record Law is not against the left or right. It is a level to which everyone has to adjust. President Lula was barred by law in 2016. If this happens to Bolsonaro, it will be after the PT. So it is not about the PT or the right. It is a regime of protection of the electoral system and I believe that the vast majority of the population will easily realize it ”declared to Poder360.
Márlon classified the change proposal as a “contempt” to the protection model of the electoral process. It evaluates that the law was won after a social mobilization for more rigidity to combat the crime of corruption and suggested that Bolsonaro’s support to the proposal contradicts the speech that made him president in 1st place.
“Apart from this initial goal of bringing PL politicians back to the elections, there is this other message that ‘we will be loosening crimes of corruption’. More than a message, this is a concrete action that seeks this loosening. The reduction of this period represents the return to justice of a large number of condemned persons in all states. It is a responsibility that is sought to satisfy the electoral purposes of a single person [Bolsonaro]in contempt for a whole model of protection of the electoral process ”he declared.
Despite the articulation of the former president in Congress for the change in law, experts consulted by the Poder360 It is said that barriers to the advance of the proposal, however, are in all 3 powers, starting in the legislative home itself.
Legislative Barrier
The electoral law expert said he did not believe that there will be sufficient consensus on the subject for his approval in the House. The PLP needs 257 signatures (absolute majority) of the plenary to advance the low house and, according to mosque, there is a “Political cost in passing a law like this”since it retroacts in advances to punish electoral irregularities.
“I do not think we will have a congressional majority that will assume the political burden of such a casuistic and dangerous decision as this will leave Brazil under suspicion before the international community itself.”he said.
The bill is currently at the CCJ (Constitution and Justice Commission), which determines whether a proposition is constitutional or not. If the decision is unfavorable to the bill, it cannot even be processed in Congress. The analysis by the Commission should start after Carnival.
Barrier in the Executive and the Judiciary
In addition to Congress, both experts remember that the measure would still have to go through the president’s approval (PT). Even if the PLP were approved, it would be subject to presidential sanction and can be vetoed if considered unconstitutional or contrary to the public interest. The case would delay the conclusion of the debate.
In a situation of low probability, according to experts, in which the PLP crosses all these impasses, the largest barrier, possibly impenetrable, is in court. Both claim that such a proposal would be framed as unconstitutional in the Supreme Court (STF) for various reasons, such as the casuisma retroactive and the need to Democracy Protection.
Márlon Reis states that casuism lies in the fact that the law was thought exactly to reverse the ineligibility of Jair Bolsonaro, and not motivated by well -established values and principles.
Regarding the non-recovery of the law, the legislator is prohibited from the creation of criminal laws that focus on facts prior to their validity. In this case, this would prevent the change proposed by Bibo Nunes from affecting Bolsonaro’s ineligibility.
However, Márlon Reis states that the slope followed by the Supreme is that ineligibility is not a penalty and there is even jurisprudence formed so that the Clean Record Law is applied to the cases before its creation.
The issue of law is not to be thought of, according to the lawyer, as a fact that would prevent the resumption of Bolsonaro’s eligibility, but as further proof that the measure was designed for the benefit of the former president, in view of strand followed by the court.
“Ineligibility is not a penalty, it is a condition for registration of the candidacy. And the Supreme has already decided that the rules dealing with ineligibility are applicable to the past facts. Therefore, beneficiary he [Bolsonaro]yes, and they [propositores do PLP] You know that. They know that the jurisprudence of the Supreme is favorable to the understanding that this change would be applicable to them, so they are doing what they are doing ”he declared.
In a last hypothesis of argument, Márlon also states that the law represents a “Civilizing backwardness”since it was “won by the mobilization of Brazilian society ”, can be framed as unconstitutional in what respect for the protection of democracy.
Rodrigo Mesquita says that the protection of democracy would even be a stronger argument than the discussion of “If the law retroact or not retroacting” for the debate to be barred by the Federal Supreme Court.
