Ministers of the Federal Supreme Court assess that the president of (Republicans-PB) made an internal gesture to the house when entering one that suspended only part of the lawsuit against the deputy (PL-RJ) by the coup plot.
The action opened by Motta must be rejected and the subject is already pacified in the Supreme, according to three ministers and three assistants heard by Sheet.
The mayor, according to these ministers, needed to give a message into the legislature that he is willing to defend the prerogatives of parliamentarians, regardless of party color.
Another assessment is that the decision by the new action to the Court can be understood as a test about the possible space in the Supreme for this type of question as a way of observing if there would be a path of interference in the cases of other defendants.
Ramagem was made a defendant with six others involved, included in the so -called central nucleus of the plot to prevent the possession of Lula (PT). In the same group is former President Jair Bolsonaro (PL).
Motta’s reaction is still part of the context of the pressure of pockets by those convicted by January 8 and internal disagreements in the House, such as the decisions of the Ethics Council against (PSOL-RJ) and (PL-ES).
Therefore, members of the Supreme believe that Motta’s reaction against the decision of the court’s first class does not signal a new clash between the powers, and the climate of alleged discord should cool soon.
On Tuesday (13) to request the review of the court’s plenary of the situation of Alexandre Ramagem in the case for the attempted coup d’état in 2022.
The House approved, by 315 votes, the suspension of the case against the parliamentarian. It is a maneuver attempted by the deputies, since the Constitution provides that the analysis should be limited only to the crimes allegedly committed after the diploma for the position.
Ramagem is a defendant for five crimes: armed criminal association, coup d’état, abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law, damage qualified to public assets and deterioration of listed assets.
The Supreme’s first class unanimously decided to suspend the lawsuit against the last two crimes, as they were linked to attacks on the headquarters of the Powers on January 8, 2023.
The Supreme has received three actions in recent days related to the attempt of the Chamber to benefit Alexandre Ramagem.
Two actions, opened by the PDT and PSOL, question the approval in the Pro-Ramage Chamber. The two are under the rapporteur of Minister Alexandre de Moraes.
Hugo Motta’s third action has not yet defined rapporteur. The evaluation in the Supreme Court is that the process will also be with Moraes, as the subjects are connected.
The minister indicated in the actions of the left parties that will not be in a hurry to define the destination of the processes. On Tuesday, he opened a 30-day deadline for the House demonstration, with an increase of 15 days for the PGR (Attorney General’s Office) to defend his position.
In practice, he decided not to give a rapid rite to the process. He could trigger Article 12 of the Supreme Internal Regulations, which shortens the deadlines in the face of the relevance of the subject, something that turned usual in court.
For ministers heard by SheetMoraes’s decision to give normal progress to the process indicates that there is no hurry to decide on the matter. The tendency is for the same procedure to be adopted for Motta’s action against the Supreme.
There is an understanding of the court that the mayor still missed when he came with an ADPF (argument of non -compliance with a fundamental precept) to raise the discussion. In the view of the ministers, the right way would be an appeal against the decision of the First Class to the Plenary.
This type of action is appropriate when there are rules issued before the 1988 Constitution or attentive court decisions to fundamental clauses of the current constitutional order.
The action states that the decision of the first class is an offense to the fundamental precepts provided for in the Constitution.
He asks that, in response, the STF plenary analyze the case and decides on the “full suspension, exclusively in relation to the accused federal deputy”, of the processing of the criminal action.
In the action, the president of the House states that the Supreme Court invaded the competence of the House of Representatives and compromised harmony among the powers by restricting the suspension of the process against branch only for the crimes of qualified damage to public assets and deterioration of the overturned assets.
Motta defends in the action that it is up to the Chamber to “define the extension to be given in the present case”. By this thesis, the Supreme could not limit the performance of the house even with the impediments provided for in the Constitution.
“Parliamentary immunity protects the parliament itself as an essential and essential institution to the democratic rule of law in the face of any arbitrariness of the other powers, so that it would not be up to them to impose on Parliament its last word when the protection of legislative houses is in question before other state institutions,” he says.
