The senator (PSD-MG) stated this Thursday (23) that he defends limits for individual decisions by ministers of the (Supreme Federal Court), but that he will still analyze the proposal on the topic and that it will go to a vote in the .
This Wednesday (22), the plenary of the Chamber against (Constitution, Justice and Citizenship Committee) and, therefore, maintained the committee’s decision.
“I consider that a law voted by the two Houses, the Senate and, sanctioned by the President of the Republic, can only have its constitutionality questioned by the STF collegiate. This is the reason for that proposed amendment to the Constitution, two years ago, which aimed precisely to discipline that the Supreme Court collegiate must give the final word on the constitutionality or not of a federal law, and not an individual decision, a decision monocratic”, he stated, when questioned by the press.
According to Pacheco, the rule would be “fair and balanced”. “I haven’t gone into depth yet. But the logic is the same as I’ve always had, that it is necessary to discipline this to avoid a culture of monocratic decisions in relation to acts by other powers”, he continued.
Former president of the Senate, Pacheco is on the STF. Allies of the president (PT) say that the nominee for the court should be the attorney general of the Union, Jorge Messias, but the Minas Gerais parliamentarian continues to have a wide support from his peers in the Senate.
It was led by parliamentarians from Novo and PL, but also had the support of PSOL.
The reading is that the proposal, by restricting the Supreme Court’s actions, serves as a message to the court and demarcates the Chamber’s position of dissatisfaction. Part of the deputies disagrees with this confrontation, while the opposite part argues that the project is not sufficient to qualify the STF.
When making monocratic decisions, they will have to justify their need and automatically submit the decision to the plenary for analysis in the following session — or it will become null and void.
The text also establishes that only parties or federations that have complied with the barrier clause will be able to file constitutionality control actions, which harms the Novo party, which did not reach this goal. Today, any party with an elected representative in the Chamber or Senate can do so.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
