The Union Public Prosecution Service articulates the creation of its own fund to be able to use fines, procedural costs and even to pay for buildings and car purchase, and experts see loopholes even to.
The Union Public Prosecution Service encompasses the Attorney General’s Office and the Federal, Military, Labor and Federal District and Territories.
Presented on April 25, the bill that establishes the Fund to Strengthen Citizenship and Improvement of the MPU is a lighter way in the House of Representatives and is ready to be voted in the Plenary, even if it has not had a public hearing or passed by commission. The text also has no rapporteur designated to give the opinion.
Four experts heard by the report see conflict of interest in the proposal, since PGR is responsible for investigating parliamentarians, but would be able to enjoy a fund fueled by the parliamentarians themselves.
Guilherme France, manager of the International Transparency Anti -Corruption Center, points out that, in the current dynamics of distribution of amendments, mayors seek allied deputies and senators to get money for their projects.
“If we imagine that prosecutors will seek parliamentarians to allocate funds to prosecutors, it is a conflict of obvious interest. The Constitution puts the prosecutor with independent function, it is funded in order to have autonomy. If it is funded by amendments, it loses this independence,” he says.
“This can compromise the supervision performance that the MP needs to do. We have numerous investigations for amendment deviations, and the MP, of course, has a fundamental performance in these processes. If he receives the amendment resources, will he investigate these resources?”
According to the text, the fund may consist of parliamentary amendments, procedural costs, fines applied by the magistrates themselves in civil or criminal proceedings and resources of alienation of assets, “beyond the charges that fit” – to explain what this may be.
The fund can be used for “construction, expansion, renovation and adequacy of its own buildings” or “the acquisition or hiring of vehicles, equipment, software and goods necessary to strengthen the institutional action of the Union Public Prosecution Service”.
The text also allows the fund to be used for people expenses, as long as within the agency improvement programs or and “continuous training and improvement actions of members and employees of the Union Public Prosecution Service”.
In this last category, which is no longer detailed in the project, experts say there is a breach of hanging, such as bonuses, additional, aid and other people advantages, including the costing of travel abroad to participate in events.
These technicians also say that the text of the proposal is generic, without transparency mechanisms or details on the fund’s impact estimation, with a loophole even so that it works outside the spending ceiling, specifying that it does not integrate the prosecutor’s budget.
The mechanism and its regulation would be the responsibility of the Attorney General, and his councils and board would be composed by other prosecutors-thus considering all power management. Depending on the regulation itself, including participation in these instances can generate extra remuneration.
The urgency for the project was approved last Tuesday (8), amid the advancement of proposals aimed at limiting or ending the pendurals of the judiciary.
In the justification that accompanies the project, the MPU states that it does not yet have its own fund, and that its goal is to “strengthen the institutional action” of its entities, and that its structure will ensure the good use of your money.
“The other governance and management structures will ensure the adequacy of the application of resources to legal dictates and good public management,” says the text.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
