The to the condemned by scammer acts, Deputy (SP), who is president of Solidarity, states that his text will not violate the (Supreme Court).
“I will not build any project that fits the Supreme. I am the biggest advocate of the Supreme Court in the Federal Court,” he says Sheet.
The deputy had already stated that the, as the mayor, (-PB), and the parties of the center desire.
That is, instead of and to the former president (), the text will change the Penal Code to reduce predicted penalties for the crimes of coup and violent abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law.
Paulinho says the vote, as he had already revealed Sheetin the sense that guidelines of government interest (PT) are then voted and that the court does not invalidate the measure by declaring its unconstitutionality.
How was the night of Thursday (18)?
We clarified well to put a name in the project, which is not amnesty, it is of dosimetry. We are discussing penalty reduction. This project can pacify the country as we try to involve the powers. It is a project to overcome this moment of controversy, polarization, and take care of real life and the projects that interest the country.
Why opt for a dosimetry project and not amnesty?
When you thought [em pautar] the urgency of the project. He took a project that was a soft amnesty, but from the beginning saying to the leaders: this project will be just for us to present another writing. It’s not my option. It was already an understanding of the House leaders. I am here representing a certain opinion of the chamber’s management, especially the president.
But why did Motta want that?
Because the supreme. You can’t now want to relive something, it would have to be a PEC [proposta de emenda à Constituição] and confront the Supreme. When Hugo Motta indicated me, he had a little intent on someone who had to do with the Supreme. And that we would work to pacify the country.
Mr. said that. Temer spoke of pact with the STF and the executive. What exactly?
Temer has an idea that we could try to make a pact with the legislature, the judiciary and the executive. So that we could vote what matters not only to the House, but to Brazil, the government. For example, the government has the income tax exemption project, with the PEC of Public Safety, that the country is chaos in security. We could, in this pact, include it all. That is, let’s vote for this [redução de penas] Now, let’s vote then, vote for that.
The judiciary would have to go in agreement with this text that I am working. The ideal would be to listen to the council benches next week and, with a text sketch, I even suggested that to Hugo Motta, he could look for the Supreme Direction and present the text. And try to go out with it pacified in the STF as well.
Would the executive participate to unlock the agenda and the STF would not declare unconstitutional?
Yeah, it wouldn’t be an affront project to the Supreme. And the government would enter this story as you vote projects in which the government is interested. Then we pacify the powers and Brazil.
But limit deputies to vote only one text with which other powers agree is not embarrassing the legislature?
No, that’s why I’m going together with one by one of the benches. Let’s only talk to the other powers when the project is sketched.
But the House can only vote for a project as the STF agree …
I think the Supreme has this tranquility that I won’t build any projects that affront the Supreme. I am the biggest advocate of the Supreme Court in the Federal Court. Everything they try to do against the Supreme, I’m the first to scream.
Is this not an STF interference in what the House is legislating?
No. We need a national understanding. Most of the Brazilian people can no longer stand this controversy. I have no way to please everyone. Are you going to be shouting from one side and the other? Probably goes. Neither Jesus Christ pleased everyone, so it won’t be me that I will. I am going to try. If I can’t, I need to please the majority.
Mr. It speaks of pacification, but the pockets are angry with this change of amnesty to dosimetry.
Let’s talk to everyone. I called Rogério Marinho (PL-RN) and Flávio Bolsonaro (PL-RJ). I’m going to find Ciro Nogueira (PP-PI). I spoke to the PT class too. Let’s talk to everyone and then we can say, look, they didn’t agree.
Those most radical people know that. Maybe even to make a speech to their class, the guy is radicalizing there, but he deep down knows that this possibility does not exist. As. It is best to have something in the middle, which can benefit those who have been unfairly penalized.
In favor of urgency does not show that there is a majority for an amnesty in itself?
We built this majority, it is not something that fell from the sky. He added people who wanted general and unrestricted amnesty and people who want something in the middle. Perhaps the vast majority want something in the middle.
How does it respond to the criticism that it is up to Congress to amnesty, but not to review penalties already applied by the judiciary? That this is to face the STF?
Congress can change the laws. And let’s change the laws. We need to do this pacified in the powers, so that we have no conflict in the front.
Mr. Do you have the signaling that the STF agrees with your proposal?
No, I didn’t talk to the STF staff. Hugo Motta must be talking, because presidents always talk. If I had any noise, I would be the first to know.
Then mr. Imagine that this intermediate project would they accept?
I imagine yes.
Why solidarity in the week in Mr. Was it chosen rapporteur?
It was a coincidence. I filed this action because the law that Cassa Supreme Minister is very confusing. She talks about [maioria] two -thirds. It is not known if it is two thirds in the plenary, if it is two thirds to revoke. I entered so that the Supreme could clarify. I really think Supreme Minister can’t be threatened all the time. It is more to modulate that and ensure that ministers can work with tranquility.
The proposal to be awarded would not be to reduce penalties, but make a distinction between those who performed scammer acts and who planned or commanded. Your proposal does not make this distinction and reduces the penalties equally to everyone, why?
It doesn’t do it, but I think it will have to do it. I was twice with [o presidente do Senado] (Brazil-AP Union) Talking about his idea. I found it spectacular.
Can we expect a higher penalty reduction for those who performed and smaller for those who commanded?
That’s it. People who passed in the middle of the turmoil, touched a stone, these people have to go home and take care of life, take care of their family.
If the reduction of retroage penalty for all, does Bolsonaro include?
The project is not individualized, it is general. If, surely the amount of years that has been imputed to it will be reduced.
Does Bolsonaro depend on this project to serve house arrest?
No. This is another story. This project will reduce penalties from everyone, including Bolsonaro. To the point that he is domiciled? I don’t think so. It depends on this articulation that I will do from Monday (22) in the House.
Can his home arrest be expressly put in the project?
It may be, if most agree. Now, I think there is no mood to do this in the House. The way for Bolsonaro to stay at home is another [por sua idade e condição de saúde]it is not for the project.
Amnesty has been an election in the House for almost three years, why was it guided now? Is it an invoice of the approval of, has to do with the 2026 election?
No, it doesn’t have to do. We came to an understanding in the Chamber that we needed to pacify the country and unlock the agenda. People are arguing, fighting. We need to get out of this discussion and go to the real world.
