Minister Flávio Dino of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), said on Wednesday (15) that the decision of the first class of the Court, which upheld three crimes in the criminal action against Deputy Alexandre Ramagem (PL-RJ), does not hurt the separation between the powers.
The statement was made after the mayor, Hugo Motta (Republicans-PB), appeal to the Supreme Court for the plenary to analyze the request for total suspension of the case, which had been approved by the House.
The decision of the first class contradicted the vote in the House, which had suspended the case against branch as a whole.
Continues after advertising
Dino stressed that the judgment does not disrespect the constitutional principle of the separation of powers.
“If a Supreme body cannot analyze an understanding fixed by the House, there would be the dissolution of the Republic,” the minister said during Wednesday’s session.
“For every power and federated entity makes its flag, its anthem, it emits its currency and then, supposedly, the separation of powers is met,” said Dino.
Continues after advertising
The House of Representatives filed the Supreme Court with an action to prevail the vote that suspended criminal action against branch, which is the only defendant parliamentary in the action related to the attempted coup d’état promoted by the previous management.
The request was made through an argument of Fundamental Precept (ADPF), which must be judged by the STF plenary.
Last week, the House decided to suspend the lawsuit against branch, but the Supreme Court had already determined that only the crimes committed after the deputy could be paralyzed.
Continues after advertising
Thus, Ramagem will still be responsible for crimes that occurred before his diplomation, as a violent abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law and criminal organization.
The argument of the appeal sent by Motta is that the decision of the Supreme Court that contradicts the vote in the House violates constitutional principles, such as parliamentary immunity and the separation between powers.
He argued that it is not for the judiciary to replace Parliament’s political court regarding the convenience of suspension of the process.
