The president of, (-PB), suffered on Friday (8) a new defeat at a meeting of the board of the house when he saw the parliamentarians who.
According to reports, Motta’s idea was that the Board of Directors recommended the removal of the mandate of parliamentarians directly to the Ethics Council, without passing through the Corregedoria of the House, following a very summary rite as happened in (Avante-MG) and.
The proposal, however, was not accepted by all participants of the meeting. The table is formed by Motta and six other parliamentarians: Altineu Côrtes (PL-RJ), Elmar Nascimento (União Brasil-BA), Carlos Veras (PT-PE), Lula da Fonte (PP-PE), Delegate Katarina (PSD-SEARGY) and Sérgio Souza (MDB-PR).
According to two parliamentarians, there was no consensus on what cases should have this outcome.
With the lack of unity of the table, the deputies decided to send the cases already filed directly to the Corregedoria – 14 pocket parliamentarians. Thus, only after the analysis by the agency and the sending of an opinion to the table will the command of the House decide whether or not the removal of the mandate to the Ethics Council.
In addition to the Bolsonarist deputies, there is also a representation of the PL against Camila Jara (PT-MS), accused of assaulting Nikolas Ferreira (PL-MG). The case of Jara was not sent by the table because the PL had already sent directly to the Internal Affairs.
If the table chooses to suggest the removal of the mandate for a period (six months), it will be up to the Ethics Council to decide on a case by case basis. The removal only occurs after the advice of the Council, which has three days to decide. Finally, it is up to the plenary against any decision of the agency.
Motta was wanted via the press office, but did not respond. An ally of the mayor minimizes wear to Motta’s image, stating that this cannot be classified as defeat because it was the “possible solution” in the face of the situation, considered delicate.
He argues, however, that the deputy makes some harsher decision to curb this kind of behavior in the house ,. The evaluation of parliamentarians is that.
A member of the Bureau defends the decision of the collegiate stating that she preserves the deputies. In his evaluation, with one more instance analyzing the cases, there will be a larger support of the table to deliberate on the punishments.
He says this is necessary for no decision to be considered hasty or unfair and may further intensify the mood in the house.
The decision not to send to the Ethics Council directly opens margin so that no de facto punishment occurs at this time, because of the tight period of this rite.
The analysis by the Internal Affairs is provided for at the time of the table that establishes the rules of temporary removal of the mandate. The corregedor, Deputy Diego Colonel (PSD-BA), has 48 hours to make his opinion to the table.
HAS Sheet Colonel says it has not yet been officially notified and that this should occur on Monday (11), when the deadline will begin to count. “In the second I will meet with the table to understand the content of the representation and, then, refer to technical analysis.”
Chamber Resolution approved last year in the House Plenary, determines that the Bureau has five business days, from the knowledge that has led to the representations, to offer the precautionary suspension of the exercise of the mandate.
Considering that the riot occurred on Wednesday (6), the table will have until the 13th to deliberate on these cases.
Behind the scenes, parliamentarians already treat how possible not to have an outcome until that date. Without this, the processes will have to be analyzed in the normal rite of the Ethics Council, which can drag itself for months.
A parliamentarian who accompanied the conversations evaluates that Motta should have imposed his position, since the theme is complex and will hardly have a consensus.
He states that it will be bad for the image of Congress as a whole if no punishment happens right now and says this can put the parliamentarian’s leadership in the House.
This is because Motta for more than once threatened the deputies with punishments, but retreated.
On Wednesday afternoon, when he decided to summon a session and recover the plenary, which said that “any conduct that aims to prevent or hinde legislative activities” would be subject to the precautionary suspension of the mandate for up to six months.
The next day, he stated that measures would be taken on Thursday (7), which did not occur.
In interviews on Thursday and this Friday, Motta stated the intention of punishing parliamentarians who “exceeded to make it difficult for the work.” Em, said he was evaluating the images of the moment.
“I think it must have punishment, because what happened really was very serious, even so that it does not happen again. We cannot agree with what happened, we have to be pedagogical in this situation,” he told CNN.
PL leader Sostenes Cavalcante said on Saturday (9), in publication in the X, to be convinced that the representations will be filed.
“We will present our defense with the firm conviction that immediate filing is the only possible outcome,” he wrote. “There is no device in the internal regiment that prohibits the legitimate act we perform this week.”
The new, Deputy Marcel Van Hattem (RS) party, classified as “political persecution” the request for suspension of the mandate because of the riot that made work in the House unfeasible for about 30 hours. Hatten remained in the chair of the chamber of the House, preventing Motta from sitting.
“Parliamentary obstruction is a legitimate and traditional instrument of the political game, widely used from the left when opposed, without any sanction,” says the subtitle note. “The new vehemently repudiates this attempt at political persecution and reaffirms its commitment to equality before the law. We will continue to firm in defense of democracy and the struggle for the rules to be equal to everyone without exception.”
Deputy Marcos Pollon (PL-MS), who was also named after the Corregedoria, published a video with defense to Hatten and justifies that, because he was autistic, he had not understood what was happening.
“They are saying he sat in the Hugo Mota chair and encouraged me to stay there. It’s a lie,” he says in the video. “I’m autistic and I didn’t understand what was happening at that time.”
