Members of the summit say that the house should advance with the PEC (proposal for amendment to the Constitution) that limits monocratic decisions of ministers of the (Supreme Court) in a political response to the Court.
Last week of the deputy (-RJ) and suspend only part of the case against the parliamentarian relating to. In the ministers’ understanding, only branch could benefit from the measure and only in relation to a portion of the accusations made.
Now deputies must follow up. She was part of a package that aimed at the performance of the STF, of parliamentary amendments.
From the Senate, the proposal restricts the power of the court magistrates to overthrow by monocratic (individual) decision laws passed by Congress.
By the PECs rite, it is up to the mayor to create a special committee to discuss the proposal-which did not occur in the management (PP-AL) after approval by the CCJ. If she was chanceled in this committee, she goes to plenary analysis.
Five interlocutors of the mayor, (-PB), told the report that the house’s summit should now proceed with this theme in reaction to the Supreme.
On Tuesday night (13), Motta announced on social networks that the house filed an ADPF (Fundamental Precept Failure) to bring the branch case to the STF plenary. “The harmony between powers only occurs when everyone uses the same tuning fork and are in the same tune,” he said.
Prior to the STF’s decision on the Ramagem case, there was already a discomfort between deputies about the blockade of health amendments and one, on the same theme-grabs made by, minister of the Supreme.
The established rules of transparency and traceability with the judiciary.
In the case of the statement made by Sostenes, Motta interlocutors said they considered a disrespect for the minister’s request for clarification, who could simply have made a connection to the president of the house.
This week, without voting in plenary, as Motta and some parliamentarians are abroad. There is an expectation among deputies that this issue will be discussed more depth next week.
This discussion occurs at a time when parliamentarians evaluate that it is necessary to respond to the Supreme, given what they classify for them, Motta has sought dialogue, but the court has not responded in the same way.
Mayor’s allies also say that the response to the court may come “homeopathic”, starting with the less bellicose alternative, which is the PEC of monocratic decisions.
As Sheet In February, the ministers of intensified from 2009 the granting of this type of decision.
There are still other more controversial proposals in the Legislature, such as the one that changes the form of indication to court ministers or to the one that authorizes parliamentarians to review the STF’s decision. These, however, are not yet on the leadership radar and should not advance at this time.
At the STF’s trial on the suspension of the branching criminal action, it was up to Dino the hardest vote. He stated that the House, in trying to suspend the entire process, surpasses its constitutional attributions and tries to promote “improper interference in a lawsuit of exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme.”
“Only in tyrannies can a state branch concentrate in your hands the power to pass laws, elaborate the budget and direct it directly, make criminal judgments or paralyze them arbitrarily-all supposedly without any kind of legal control,” said Dino.
Motta interlocutors say that even before the STF’s decision, which was expected, the possibility of a response to the court was already discussed. Among the leaders, however, there are those who defend greater caution to avoid increasing the institutional crisis.
One tells the report that it is necessary to advance with the discussion of guidelines that seek to defend the prerogative of parliamentarians, but states that this cannot occur as a confrontation to the Supreme. In this sense, it argues that the theme returns to the discussion of parliamentarians later, not the heat of recent events.
Nevertheless, there is an assessment among deputies that it is necessary to give an institutional response to the Supreme Court at this time. They also say that the PEC of monocratic decisions has already been approved by the Senate in 2023 and, therefore, there would be no exposure to the image of deputies only in this case.
Parliamentarians also complain of what they consider an excess of monocratic decisions issued by the STF ministers in the last.
The number of in adis (direct unconstitutionality) and ADPFs (Argument for non -compliance with fundamental precept) was only 6 in 2007 and reached a peak of 92 in 2020. Last year, there were 71.
Since 2024, deputies criticize the judiciary’s performance, stating that the Court and its ministers disrespect the autonomy of powers.
This year, the deputies created a secretary in the Chamber dedicated to defending the prerogatives and immunity of parliamentarians.
