The Minister of the Federal Supreme Court summoned on Sunday (27) the leader of the Bench of the House (RJ), to be provided in 48 hours explanations about an alleged agreement to divide the parliamentary amendments of countertops.
Sostenes presses the mayor (Republicans), to guide, and in this context spoke to journalists about the possibility of the party to break the alleged agreement on the amendments.
According to the PL leader, Motta and other party leaders agreed to divide these resources following this proportion: 30% of the total amount that a permanent commission of the House is entitled to the party that has the command of the collegiate, while the others 70% are distributed by Motta to other subtitles.
Parliamentary amendments are the main instrument of political action of congressmen today, involving figures that exceed $ 50 billion a year.
The so -called commission amendments are those destined for the thematic collegiate of chamber and Senate, such as health, education, among many others.
This slice, however, being used so that the summits of the two houses distribute amendments to parliamentarians through political negotiations, without the collegiate having decision power. Dino, in previous decisions, suspended the mechanism and charged more transparency and traceability.
In this Sunday’s decision, the minister stated that Sostenes statements may represent non -compliance with decisions and what the Constitution establishes.
“The statements attributed to the PL leader in the House, Deputy Sostenes Cavalcante, if true, could indicate that commission amendments would be in dissonance with the Federal Constitution and Complementary Law 210/2024,” Dino wrote.
“Relevant to recall that the National Congress, by voting for the aforementioned Complementary Law, has decided that the commission amendments are intended for ‘budgetary actions of national or regional interest (article 4)’ and ‘approved the nominations for commissions, their presidents will make them minutes’ (Article 5, II), which does not resemble the rite apparently described by the deputy Cavalcante.”
Sostenes said early Sunday afternoon that he had not yet been summoned and will respond to the minister “with great pleasure.” Transparency, with names of which parliamentarians who indicated the amendments, “will be respected to be the way it is,” said the deputy.
In his social networks, he said, without directly citing the decision, that “Parliament is free” and that deputies will not bend to threats from ministers of the Supreme.
“Deputy elected by the people do not bow to threats of Minister of the Supreme Court. We make politics with transparency, within the House of the People. And the struggle for amnesty is fair, constitutional and legitimate. We will not accept censorship, we will not accept intimidation.”
A Sheet He sought Motta’s staff on Sunday and is waiting for an answer.
