The CCJ of approved, on Tuesday (30), a project that restricts the possibility of triggering the (Supreme Court) in cases of questioning of constitutionality of laws and norms and limits monocratic decisions in the Court.
The text follows for analysis of the, if there is no appeal so that it is also voted in the plenary of the Chamber.
The bill, proposed by Deputy Marcos Pereira (Republicanos-SP) and reported by Deputy Alex Mante (Citizenship-SP), gained adhesion among the congressmen in the context of the discussion of the, as well as the measure that was buried in the Senate, it also intended to give a message to the Supreme, delimiting its performance.
Among the main changes is the prediction that STF ministers will have to make monocratic decisions to justify their need and submit the decision to the plenary analysis automatically in the next session – or will become null.
The text also states that only parties or federations that have complied with the barrier clause may file a direct action of constitutionality, direct action of unconstitutionality by omission, declaratory action of constitutionality, and argument of non -compliance with fundamental precept. Today, any party with representative elected in the House or Senate can do so.
For the rapporteur, the two changes – the limitation of actors who can enter constitutionality questioning and the rite for monocratic decisions – are very important.
“It is necessary to prove with the relevance so that the Supreme Court fulfills its constitutional role. And not as it is today, that any subject the supreme needs to evaluate and judge,” he says to Sheet.
“And also the issue of monocratic, which now has a rite of procedure for the minister to be able to make a [decisão] monocratic. He needs to demonstrate urgent need and necessarily [a decisão] It has to be in the next vote of the full, “says the rapporteur.
Opponents to the project argue that the changes would require the approval of a PEC and not a bill, as it is the Constitution that establishes the competent actors to enter constitutionality questioning actions.
In the last election, 7 parties that had elected deputies did not reach the barrier clause and, therefore, would be prevented from triggering the Supreme Court to question the constitutionality of laws. The group includes acronyms such as Avante, Solidarity and New.
“Who is interested in limiting which parties can or may not trigger the Supreme? Is it to protect who does the undue budget?” Asks PSOL leader, Talíria Petrone (RJ).
Currently, any union confederation or national class entity can also trigger the Supreme Court for constitutionality discussions.
The project approved by the CCJ also restricts this point, requiring that these entities prove to have, through documentation, a causal link with the theme of the action and that their maximum deliberative body has approved the use of the action in the STF.
The text speaks of demonstrating “strict causal link between the object of action and the institutional purposes expressly provided for in its original constitutive acts, being insufficient to configure thematic relevance to mere indirect correlation or the invocation of generic objectives of the entity.”
The entities would also have to clarify their private economic interests “through technical reports, legal opinions and detailed survey of data from the respective sector”.
Much of the House dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court is due to the more than 80 inquiries in the Court that investigate possible deviations in parliamentary amendments, which has led to the reactions of deputies, such as the Armage PEC and now the project approved by the CCJ.
The ones were required by the Supreme based on actions of civil society organizations, such as Abraji (Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism). The imposing amendments (mandatory execution) are also under evaluation in the Supreme Court due to an action filed by PSOL.
