The rapporteur of the representation filed against (PL-SP) at the Ethics Council defended this Wednesday (8) the filing of the case.
Soon after reading the vote, parliamentarians asked for a view (more time for analysis) of the process, postponing the outcome. The rapporteur’s position, due to the filing, will still need to be analyzed by the panel.
The representation calls for the loss of Eduardo’s mandate due to breach of decorum and was presented by the PT, senator Humberto Costa (PT-PE) and deputy Paulão (PT-AL).
PT members maintain, among other things, that Eduardo made repeated attacks on institutions, especially the STF (Supreme Federal Court); incited against the electoral process by stating that “without amnesty for Jair Bolsonaro there will be no election in 2026”; and also worked with foreign authorities to embarrass Brazilian institutions.
The case’s rapporteur, Marcelo Freitas (União Brasil-MG) said that Eduardo exposed critical views, in an “exercise of freedom of expression and political opinion in the context of international debates”.
“This does not constitute an ethical infraction, but a legitimate exercise of office, as recognized by democracies,” he stated.
Eduardo has been in the US since March, where he leads a campaign for sanctions to free former president Jair Bolsonaro (PL) from prison.
Freitas has. Last week, the leader of the PT, Lindbergh Farias (RJ), asked the president of the council, Fabio Schiochet (União Brasil-SC), to choose a new rapporteur, arguing that Freitas is close to Eduardo and supports Bolsonaro.
Schiochet, however, maintained the rapporteur, claiming that he trusts Freitas’ impartiality. The choice of the Minas parliamentarian was made by the president of the council among three drawn options — Duda Salabert (PDT-MG) and Paulo Lemos (PSOL-AP) were the others included on the list.
This Wednesday, before reading the rapporteur’s vote, Eduardo was defended by a member of the DPU (Union Public Defender’s Office). According to the president of the council, Eduardo did not appoint a lawyer or representative and, therefore, called a public defender to work on the case. The task fell to Sergio Armanelli and caught the attention of members of the collegiate.
“The Public Defender’s Office is the advocacy of the poor. It must provide legal guidance and defend people in need”, criticized deputy Chico Alencar (PSOL-RJ).
Schiochet justified that the Chamber did not have a lawyer to work on the case and that the request to the DPU was “an excess of zeal on my part due to the scope of the case”.
Armanelli began Eduardo’s defense by pointing out the parliamentarian’s “lack of notification” about the representation. “So far, it is not possible to verify whether the attempts to cite Eduardo have effectively been exhausted,” he said, which was later challenged by the president of the collegiate. “All communication channels were used and Eduardo’s office is operational,” said Schiochet.
The public defender also said that Eduardo only “expressed political opinions” and that “criticism cannot be criminalized.” Similar arguments were used by the rapporteur afterwards.
If the majority in the Ethics Council is against the opinion for archiving, a new rapporteur is chosen.
For the deputy to lose his mandate, at least 257 votes are needed out of 513 in the plenary, an absolute majority of the House.
The case against Eduardo was initiated on September 23, when the period of up to 90 working days began to run for the collegiate to comment on the revocation.
