The decision on representation being processed in the Ethics Council to revoke the mandate of (-SP) is in the hands of a group of parliamentarians linked to parties in the center.
On Wednesday (8), the rapporteur of the case, deputy Delegado Marcelo Freitas (-MG), read his opinion and . But the collegiate must only vote on the opinion on the 21st. If the majority disagrees with the filing, a new rapporteur will be appointed.
The council is made up of 21 deputies, but the president, Fabio Schiochet (União Brasil-SC), does not participate in the vote. Among the remaining 20, 5 are deputies from PT, PDT and PSOL, who must vote against the filing. Another 4 parliamentarians are from the PL, which, combined with the rapporteur’s position, would give 5 votes in favor of Eduardo, endorsing the filing.
The remaining 10 deputies are affiliated with the parties , , , , Podemos and União Brasil and can vote both to reject the filing and to approve the opinion.
Eduardo has been with us since March, from where he leads a campaign for sanctions to free Bolsonaro from prison.
The president of the PP, senator (PI), . In an interview with Band’s Canal Livre, he said that he would bring “gigantic damage” to the right for 2026.
Deputies from the center heard by the Sheet They preferred not to anticipate how they should vote and say they will study the matter, but make complaints about Eduardo’s actions. They say they have freedom within the parties to vote the way they prefer – and, privately, they say that no one has asked for (PL’s) son.
The complaints particularly concern Eduardo’s disappearance, although unjustified absences are not within the scope of analysis by the Ethics Council.
They also say that they were surprised by the rapporteur’s vote, as at least the admissibility of the representation was expected, allowing the possibility of discussing the merits.
Protocoled by PT deputies, maintaining, among other things, that he made repeated attacks on the (Supreme Federal Court), worked with foreign authorities to embarrass Brazilian institutions and incited against the electoral process by stating that “without amnesty for Jair Bolsonaro there will be no election in 2026”.
The rapporteur stated that Eduardo only expressed critical views, in an “exercise of freedom of expression and political opinion in the context of international debates”.
The PT leader, Lindbergh Farias (RJ), asked the council president to choose a new rapporteur, arguing that he supports the former president, but the request was rejected. On Friday (10), Lindbergh appealed the decision to the president of the Chamber, (Republicanos-PB).
Three other representations against Eduardo await a decision from Motta. The president of the Ethics Council understands that the three pieces are similar and requested authorization from the president of the Chamber to combine them, so that the process can take place together.
According to him, Freitas’ rapporteur representation was processed in isolation because it cited Eduardo’s statement about the 2026 election, an episode not mentioned in the others.
Schiochet afrandmou to Sheet which is awaiting approval from Motta, who does not have a deadline to respond.
In parallel to the representations on the Ethics Council, Eduardo may also become a target of the Chamber’s Board of Directors due to the number of unjustified absences.
The 120-day leave he took when he went to the USA ended on July 20 and, since then, he has not attended plenary sessions. The Constitution establishes in its article 55 that a deputy who is absent from one third of the year’s ordinary sessions will lose his mandate.
But, in theory, Eduardo would not lose his mandate in 2025 due to excessive absences even if he stopped attending all sessions without justification until the end of this year. The punishment would only be possible from March 2026, when the Chamber analyzes absences from the previous year.
For Eduardo, the loss of his mandate via the Ethics Council would have greater consequences. The legislation for the case of revocation due to absences, determined by the Board of Directors, unlike what would happen if he lost his mandate by decision of the House plenary, after a process in the Council.
