Representative Guilherme Derrite (PP-SP), rapporteur of the Anti-Faction bill, has accumulated a series of stumbles and setbacks in the text since he was chosen to prepare an opinion on the government’s initiative.
After presenting the fourth version in six days, the project is now scheduled to be analyzed next Tuesday.
From the moment he was defined as rapporteur, last Friday, Derrite did not present new versions until the weekend. The most recent text has not yet reached consensus and is subject to criticism.
Continues after advertising
The parliamentarian, who temporarily took leave from his position as security secretary under Tarcísio de Freitas (Republicans) in the government of São Paulo, was chosen as rapporteur due to a demand from his party, the PP.
His choice displeased the government and the rapporteur was not invited to a meeting between the Minister of Justice, Ricardo Lewandowski, and the president of the Chamber, Hugo Motta (Republicanos-PB).
This Wednesday, Derrite met with benches from different parties to try to reach an agreement to vote on the initiative. He spoke with deputies from the Republicans, PSD, PP and União Brasil, in addition to meeting with governors and other government and opposition parliamentarians.
Even parliamentarians from the same political camp as the rapporteur, who is a Bolsonarist, complained that the text is not yet ready to be voted on. From Jair Bolsonaro’s party, the leader of the PL in the Chamber, Sóstenes Cavalcante (RJ), and the governor of Rio, Claudio Castro (PL), were among those who asked for the postponement. Castro went so far as to say that “there is no point in approving a proposal that will remain stuck in the Senate or be considered unconstitutional”.
At the meeting with PSD deputies, Derrite heard criticism that his report compromised the funding of the Federal Police. Parliamentarians such as Laura Carneiro (PSD-RJ) and Aluísio Mendes (Republicanos-MA), who is a federal police officer and attended part of Derrite’s meetings on Wednesday, asked the rapporteur to make more changes to ensure that the PF did not have the funds at risk.
This Wednesday, Derrite also met with the executive secretary of the Ministry of Justice, Manoel Carlos de Almeida Neto, and with the leader of the MDB in the Chamber, Isnaldo Bulhões (AL).
Continues after advertising
In conversations with the representative of the Justice department and in other dialogues with the government leader in the Chamber, José Guimarães (PT-CE), the government pointed out to Derrite that the text needs changes on several points, such as the PF issue, the deadline for the forfeiture of assets and the overlapping of laws.
Derrite listened to the suggestions and then presented a fourth version of the report. The government, however, assessed that none of the requests were fully met.
Leaders close to Motta admit difficulties in reaching an agreement, but avoid criticizing Derrite.
Continues after advertising
— Here I want to record the availability and loyalty to the matter of the executive secretary of the Ministry of Justice, who has been a defender and a spokesperson for this topic and is available not only to the rapporteur, but also to all parties and parliamentarians to assist and subsidize us, so that the text is, in essence, preserved, not distorted or modified, but, above all, polished, improved and that the objective of the legislator’s intention and the expectations of the Brazilian people are truly met — he declared Isnaldo.
In another moment of tension, the PT leader in the Chamber, Lindbergh Farias (RJ), and Hugo Motta had a heated discussion at Tuesday’s leaders’ meeting about the project. The PT member complained about Derrite’s text. Motta reacted energetically with dissatisfaction and spoke in favor of the rapporteur’s work.
In relation to the PF, there were three attempts to adjust the text to reach an agreement with the corporation and so far there is no understanding.
Continues after advertising
On Monday, Derrite and Motta spoke by phone with the general director of the PF, Andrei Rodrigues. After the conversation, the rapporteur and the president of the Chamber announced that they would change the text and that there would be an agreement with the PF, which did not happen, since even with the adjustments in the wording, there were still loopholes for the Federal Police to lose protagonism compared to state forces.
In the third version of the report, Derrite changed the sections that provided for subordination to state forces, but created a new problem by not specifying how funds would be allocated for the PF to be financed. An adjustment was made in the fourth version, but the government says that another fund needs to be mentioned in the project.
Initially the agreement for the text, of which Motta was one of the organizers, was to equate the penalties for factions with the penalties for terrorism.
Continues after advertising
The idea was to please the opposition, which demanded that organized crime be classified as terrorist, and also the government, since the text did not formally classify the factions as terrorists.
Despite this, the text was the target of several criticisms and government supporters began a campaign on social media against Motta and Derrite. Government officials began to say that there was a risk of foreign intervention even without the factions being considered terrorists, since, by equalizing the penalties, the text made changes to the anti-terrorism law.
Throughout the week Derrite gave up on making changes to the anti-terrorism law, but another problem was created because the opposition has now threatened to take up this point again through a vote on highlights, with analysis of separate sections, when the project reaches the plenary.
At an event with governors, Derrite complained about what he called a “political war”. When making the changes, the rapporteur has avoided talking about retreat, but calls it a strategy.
— Let’s not miss this opportunity to prioritize a political war. We have to think about the population that suffers the problems of those who live under the rule of organized crime
