It was based on a project presented by Miguel Reale Júnior, as Minister of Justice of Fernando Henrique Cardoso (PSDB), which, almost 20 years later, the law by which the former president (PL) will be tried in the (Supreme Court), accused of attempted coup.
Lawyer and retired professor of Criminal Law at USP (University of São Paulo), he sees as positive that Brazil has revoked the National Security Act and approved to which the ones – to appear from criticism to what it classifies as a sugar, with which it actively contributed to other jurists.
For Reale Júnior, 81, who was still from the former president () and also filed a request against Bolsonaro after the CVID CPI, is a moment of healing and reaffirmation of democracy and their values, facing the actions they flowed into.
“It is a wound that is in Brazilian democracy, and it needs to be healed. Cure is done through criminal proceedings, where those responsible are judged,” he says.
Critic of the Together, he also says that it would be a “betrayal of democracy”, on the grounds that none of the hypotheses that, in his view, would allow the measure to be present.
He understands, on the other hand, that it would be the conviction of the defendants of the coup plot and January 8 only for the crime of attempted coup, as he would already absorb, in his view, the crime of attempted abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law. The minister in the actions of January 8, but no longer reached adherents in the court.
The STF will start. Like mr. Defines this moment from the political and legal point of view?
It is a very important moment of reaffirmation of Brazilian democracy. We are in a period of democracy consolidation.
It was a shock to the country these measures that flowed on January 8. It is a wound that has been in Brazilian democracy, and it needs to be healed. The cure is made through criminal proceedings, in which those responsible are tried with full right of defense, contradictory, as it is being.
Criminal law has a primordial function, which is to reaffirm, through its application, important values that the law protects and which have been injured.
Mr. Speak in healing. A part of the population. Can this be a challenge?
In fact, it is a minority.
When politics is mixed with passion, and with religion too, one creates a boiling that leads to radical, unprecedented, unprecedented positions. But I believe this does not interrupt the process at all, nor will it be able to advance for a possible amnesty. I think the amnesty does not correspond at all to the Brazilian feeling. Amnesty would be a betrayal of democracy.
Why?
Amnesty has reasons that can justify it. One of them is in the sense that the way the fact was practiced, it no longer reaches the civic consciousness, the valuable feeling that would have been offended.
It may also be appropriate as a transition process, that is, the passage of an authoritarian government to a rule of law – as it happened in 1979, even with all the failures of this project.
The other amnesty hypothesis. But there is no pacification. Amnesty advocates do not want pacification, they want impunity. With pacification, there would be no violation of Brazilian sovereignty and the search for constraints to the Brazilian economy. It is not a trade war, it is an economic war, to press internal political decisions in Brazil. The largest US power, fueled by Bolsonaro and his children, with Brazil. What pacification is this?
In 2021, by approving the crimes against the Democratic Rule of Law, the Congress adopted a project presented by mr. in 2002 as a base. Now with the law in use, which balance mr. he does?
This project was presented in 2002, carried out by a committee chaired by Cernicchiaro [ex-ministro do STJ]with the participation of Barroso. Had several virtues, [mas] Needed to be modified, thought. I was surprised by the appearance of an interest in [Arthur]for voting this project and with the urgent vote.
There was a luck not to be with Bolsonaro’s coup d’état. Otherwise we would always have this pecha. Because the value being protected there is not democracy, it is not the rule of law. It was the ideology of national security, which prevailed during the military regime.
Of course, there are several problems in this law [de 2021]. But two fundamental types, which are the abolition of the democratic rule of law and coup d’état, are sufficient for the protection of democracy. That is, democracy has to be a militant democracy, which defends itself, which is not naive to imagine that it must give freedom to destroy freedom.
Which balance mr. Do you make these two crimes, which are being?
They are venture crimes, where there needs no effects, material results, just the process of trying to make the crime consummate. It is the so -called attack crime.
And I have a position equal to that of Barroso [nas ações do 8 de Janeiro]. I don’t see two crimes that add up. I see the crime of coup d’état absorbing the crime of impediment to the exercise of powers. That is, the impediment of the exercise of powers was a means by which the coup d’état was given.
It claims that in many of the facts that PGR brings in the complaint there are no elements that. Like mr. See this argument?
It is a logical argument of the defense. In fact, the defense is very well insinuated. But I believe that in the process there are elements that may contest this position.
As for, the defense claims, in general, that it would be non -punishable acts and without threat or violence. Mr. Evaluates that these conversations would configure a crime?
Yes. It is a serious threat to you, as President of the Republic, as head of the Armed Forces, to present a proposal for military intervention in the TSE or wanting the state of siege, which had no fit, which requires a situation that was not present at all. This is a subterfuge. Already reaches the democratic legal good.
There is criticism that the minister would have participated in a very way and that it would impact on impartiality. Mr. Do you agree?
Alexandre de Moraes’s to conduct the process. I believe it is his style a little prosecutor, where he is from, but there is no incompetence of him or impediment. Because otherwise everyone would be prevented. What was injured and injured there was not a minister, was the Supreme Court.
And mr. Do you have any criticism?
The problem of consumption [absorção]because I believe it is one crime. And I think the feathers are very high too. There could be a reduction in the amount of penalty [aos condenados do 8 de Janeiro] Perhaps for a criminal review.
I might have given more time to appreciation of the tests. Not that this creates nullity, but I think the size of the process and the high set of evidential elements would require that it was granted more time for both the prosecutor and the defense.
Mr. Do you agree with those who maintain that the former president’s trial should be in the plenary?
No, because this is in the Internal Regulations. It has been a long time since it has been decided that criminal proceedings are judged by the classes. This is not a decision that was made for this process.
Some argue that, by providing that the president is judged by the plenary, this should also apply to the former president.
I see no analogy that is established.
Regarding the questioning of the ballot box by Bolsonaro, there are those who refer to the episode with, in 2014. How mr. See today the request made at the time?
I think there was a mistake of Aécio, effectively a mistake. But it was not there that a policy of discredit of the process was established. There was an argument, but there was no policy of undoing the validity, the legitimacy of the electoral process.
And mr. See how a mistake why?
Because I think there was not enough elements there, so much so that this argument was rejected.
Nor did it have this effective repercussion, there was no popular movement, the population was not plagued, their co -religionists against the TSE, against the electoral process. It’s different. It was not an exploitation of discredit of the institution.
Could you have planted a seed?
No need, right? This seed was running the world.
In 2022 mr. He declared a vote in the first round. What is the balance that mr. Do you make the government?
It is sad the balance as there was no possibility of actually a government of union and an idea of government, means a government execution plan. And was lost in some unnecessary wars, such as the war against the Central Bank, enemy of Roberto Campos [Neto]that is, small wars that only harmed the country.
Mr. It was affiliated to the PSDB for over 25 years. As if mr. See the party’s trajectory, that this year?
The PSDB was a party that was born from top to bottom. He is born in the constituent with great leaders. They were dying or aging and there was no replacement. And a base has not been created. It was a party constituted within the constituent to oppose the quéry and presidentialism.
In 2022, the then president of the PT, Gleisi Hoffmann, said that ‘several people’ who participated in the [de Dilma] they evaluated ‘that this was a mistake’. Mr. Do you agree?
She didn’t understand anything. It had nothing to do with regret, with impeachment. I was saying I voted for Lula because we had to unite against the harm of Bolsonaro.
It was a process of salvation in the disaster country that was Bolsonaro. And the risk that was a second round. Unfortunately, the second round came and it was a suffocation.
Mr. Makes any caveats or see with other eyes how was the impeachment process?
No. The pedaling led the country to the greatest recession in its history. If there had been impeachment, but Dilma’s continuity, the country had sunk.
Mr. Evaluates that, the way it was done, this process had influence on what happened in the following years?
No, I think we are forgetting that there was a Temer government, which was doing some beneficial measures, but complicated in the corruption process. And then it gave, without a doubt, azo to the antipolitics that has come since 2013.
X -ray | Miguel Reale Júnior, 81
Retired lawyer and professor of criminal law at USP. He was Minister of Justice in the FHC government in 2002 and chairman of the Commission of Political Dead and Missing, from 1995 to 2001. He was also Secretary of Public Security of São Paulo in 1983 under the government of Franco Montoro. He was one of the plaintiffs who led to the impeachment of former President Dilma Rousseff (PT) and special presidential advisor to the Constituent Assembly.
