the suspension of the lawsuit in the (Supreme Court) against (-RJ) challenges the Constitution and anticipates a debate on the bond of crimes with the acts of.
The measure, in addition to counteracting the court’s understanding that only part of the action could be barred, opens a breach for other defendants accused of plotting a 2022 coup from being benefited, including the former president (PL).
Lawyers and law teachers consulted by Sheet It is said that the house has the power to hold actions against deputies, but forced the constitutional limit by suspending it in full and in relation to all imputed crimes.
O In March on charges of coup d’état, violent abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law, armed criminal organization, qualified damage and deterioration of listed heritage.
As he is a deputy, the Court notified the Congress. The Constitution establishes that, receiving the complaint against senator or deputy for a crime that occurred after the diploma, the respective house may suspend the progress of action against the congressman.
This protection is guaranteed in the section of the text that deals with parliamentary immunity. According to Raquel Scalcon, professor at FGV Law SP, the central issue is whether this prerogative was exercised within the limits.
After (-RJ), the President of the First Class, Minister, announced in April the head of the House, (-PB), that the house could only bar part of the action.
The Supreme Court understood that the application of and specifically to crimes allegedly committed after diploma: qualified damage and deterioration of listed assets.
Scalcon says it is not possible to immediately classify the measure as unconstitutional. For her, if, on the one hand, it is clear that parliamentary immunity only encompasses the figure of the deputy, on the other, there is a debate to be locked in relation to crimes.
“There is a discussion about when the attempt is effectively [de golpe]if it starts in 2022, which is the line of [Procuradoria-Geral da República]or if this attempt would only have happened on January 8, “says the teacher.
The suspension of the action by the House follows the second line. According to the rapporteur, Deputy Alfredo Gaspar (-Al), the crime of criminal organization, albeit allegedly started in 2021, extends in time beyond diploma.
This description is contained in the PGR’s own complaint: “The stable and permanent nature of the criminal organization is evident in its progressive and coordinated action, which began in July 2021 and extended until January 2023”.
As for the crimes of coup and abolition of the State, the thesis of the deputy of União Brasil is that they could only occur after the inauguration of () and that the violence and serious threat would have been verified in the attacks of January 8 – after the diploma.
“If I well understood the terms of the complaint presented by the Public Prosecution Service, deputy branch is accused of having practiced acts that had as one of his results on January 8,” says Roger Leal, professor at the Faculty of Law.
“This seems to imply, therefore, that these offenses also projected beyond diplomation. They would not have completed at a previous moment. This line allows, therefore, to consider the wider range of the deliberation of the Chamber.”
The question is to define when the executory acts of a crime are beginning and ending when it comes to attempts. Since criminal types have been created recently, there is still little base to definitively clarify controversy.
Georges Abboud, a professor at PUC-SP and IDP, believes that expanding the protection of other accused in criminal action is an excess of the decision of the House and that “no doubt, it would be to violate the Constitution and the jurisprudence of the Supreme.”
It also says that it is necessary to discuss both the chain of events and the characterization of crimes. It also states that even the reach of immunity in cases of crimes against democracy can be the subject of debate
According to him, there may be an understanding that coup and undemocratic speeches are not protected by immunity, precisely because it is a guarantee for the exercise of parliamentary function – and not to shield crime.
Álvaro Palma Jorge, from FGV Law Rio, considers that the part of the accusation that deals with acts of violence is very characterized in events on January 8 and that this will be a problem that the Supreme should face in the future.
“When they are going to analyze the specific case, it will be necessary to understand if these crimes are supported without January 8 in their description,” says the teacher, who sees only the extent of parliamentary immunity to correees.
