The attempt by the Chamber to deliver the federal deputy (-RJ) and benefit the former president (PL) and other accused of the coup plot process should not prosper long, according to four ministers of the (Federal Supreme Court) heard under reserve by Sheet.
According to them, there is a majority understanding in the court that the movement of parliamentarians is unconstitutional.
Another point raised by these ministers, including a member of the collegiate responsible for the processing and trial of the process of the end of the Bolsonaro government, is that the word on the subject will be the president of the first class ,.
On Wednesday (7), the CCJ (Constitution and Justice Commission) approved the suspension of criminal prosecution against the parliamentarian, with the gap to try to suspend the entire process, which has Bolsonaro among the defendants.
For STF ministers, however, Zanin was already clear enough about the limits to the legislature’s performance in cases of criminal actions against parliamentarians.
Two weeks ago, Zanin reinforced the position of the Court by sending a letter to the mayor, (-PB), highlighting the competence of the.
This would limit the veto of the House to follow the criminal proceedings against him to two crimes: damage qualified to the equity and deterioration of the overturned assets.
Three other offenses-armed criminal association, coup and abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law-by which Ramagem is defendant would have been committed before diploma and therefore would not be in the House analysis umbrella, since he was not yet parliamentary when practiced.
The resolution project in progress in the house determines, in a generic way, not to mention branch, that the progress of the criminal action is sustained. With this, in addition to extrapolating the Supreme Court’s understanding of the competence of the House regarding the case of branch, the text also leaves space for an interpretation that goes beyond the deputy.
The Constitution provides that, in the event of criminal lawsuits against acting parliamentarians, the Supreme Court shall be aware of the house to which it belongs, and it may suspend the action while the mandate is in force.
After, the Court sent the communication of the decision to the House. The new craft would have the ability to make clear what was dealt with in the trial – or that is, the crime of coup, for example, is out of the list in power of the house.
The Supreme Court dealt with the letter as usual, as the first document would not have specified the crimes that could be the target of the deputies. When the trial minutes were published, Zanin sent the new craft.
At the time, classifying the act as a new interference from the judiciary on the legislature.
These politicians say that attitudes like this of Supreme members increase deputies’ pressure on the mayor to respond to the Supreme Court. Since 2024, deputies have complained about the judiciary’s performance, stating that the court and its ministers disrespect the autonomy of powers.
In the Supreme Court, however, the reading was that it was more political narrative, since the constitution is clear about the goal of the legislature authority to act in cases of the type.
In the House, the Boconist Alfredo Gaspar (União Brasil-AL) reported the article and had 44 votes in favor and only 18 opposing. The text directly benefits Bolsonaro and other defendants in the process.
During the CCJ session, Ramagem criticized the Supreme Court, called the judiciary’s persecution and stated that the posture can even reach leftist politicians.
“It is not just exacerbated judicial activism, there is a clear usurpation of our legislative competences. (…) I am serving today as a Casuistic Player of the Supreme Court,” he said. “If you do with me, you can do this to you someday, including leftist colleagues.”
To stop the criminal action, the case must be first evaluated at the CCJ and then approved by the majority of the plenary (with 257 votes, in the case of deputies).
