The parties and filed an ADPF (argument of non-compliance with a fundamental precept) in the (Supreme Court) for the Court to declare unconstitutional against the deputy (-RJ).
The approved project has a breach to try to reach the entire process related to the 2022 coup plot and benefit the former president (PL).
The ADPF asks to exclude from the criminal action, the non-parliamentary mandate or also the alleged crimes committed by branch prior to diploma.
In the argument, the parties state that the deliberation of the House was illegitimate and that the maintenance of the decision would represent serious institutional precedent, “which may lead to the reiteration of similar acts, including other parliamentarians reported by the same facts, compromising the integrity of the accusatory system and the regular functioning of the penal jurisdiction of the competence of this Court.”
The subtitles argue that the decision of the House has given an extensive interpretation of the Institute of Parliamentary Guarantees, which allowed “a conceptual expansion such that it authorizes the misappropriation of the drawn institute as a democratic guarantee in pernicious transmutation to an instrument that authorizes and protects the practice of crime whose destruction of the same democracy it guarantees.”
They also remember that the Constitution determines that parliamentary inviolability, ie alleged crimes committed before that would not be subject to prerogative.
In the evaluation of network and PDT, the acts imputed to branch do not constitute a unique and indivisible block, “it is perfectly possible to identify different temporalities and contexts that directly impact the analysis of the application – or not – of the prerogative of criminal proceedings.”
The parties speak of violation of the principle of separation of powers, since the sustainment would exceed the limits of the constitutionally conferred competence to the CCJ (Constitution and Justice Commission) by deliberating for the full suspension of the criminal action filed against the deputy.
“The measure approved by the House, therefore, constitutes evident deviation of purpose, since, under the pretext of safeguarding the parliamentary mandate, it aims, in fact, to shield other agents involved, among them former President Jair Bolsonaro, to respond for the conduct imputed to them, and embarrass the legitimate performance of the Supreme Federal Court.”
According to the parties, the adoption of such a flexible understanding of sustaining generates an institutional risk of multiplier effect, allowing Congress in the future to stop criminal proceedings in analogous situations, without observing the required ethical and legal marks.
The leader of the network, deputy (PE), criticizes the decision of the House. “This was a clear strategy to rid Bolsonaro and his accomplices of responsibilities for the attempted coup that intended to resume the military regime in Brazil. Our resource is also respecting the National Congress itself that scammers wanted to dissolve,” he argues.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
