André Marsiglia, professor of constitutional law, Gustavo Sampaio, professor at the Fluminense Federal University, and Vera Chemin, a specialist in Constitutional Law, criticized Alexandre de Moraes’s decision to determine the removal of PL parliamentarians who were camping in the Three Powers Square.
Experts argue that the right of meeting, as it is fundamental, cannot suffer limitations when exercised peacefully.
Marsiglia argued that Article 5, item 16 of the Constitution establishes as the only restriction that meetings are peaceful and without weapons. “It does not seem to me that this risk existed and, therefore, there is no way, by precaution or fear, limit a fundamental right,” he said.
Silent manifestation
Sampaio stressed that the protest was silent and assessed that the decision was mainly influenced by recent events that occurred on site. “If you disregard this element of the recent story, I will tell you that you have no justification,” he said.
Sampaio also pointed out that there was no imminent risk to the facilities or the people who work at the scene. According to him, it was only “a silent manifestation” with opposition deputies camped in tents, without any kind of verbal manifestation.
Marsiglia warned of the risks of limiting fundamental rights by precaution. “If because we are afraid or fear that there is a new January 8, we curb fundamental rights, then we no longer have the constitution because it is no longer a fundamental right,” argued the expert.
The lawyer Vera Chemin, a specialist in Constitutional Law, classified the determination of Moraes as “totally illegal and unconstitutional”.
According to Chemin, Moraes’s own academic work states that public authorities cannot interfere “in such events”. The lawyer points out that any police intervention should only occur in specific cases, such as when a participant door gun or commits an unlawful act.
Chemin also points out that the judiciary “can only act from the moment there is really the existence or practice of an unlawful act.”
