The votes that rejected the loss of the mandates of deputies Glauber Braga (PSOL-RJ) and (-SP) represented a defeat for the president of , (-PB), and for his predecessor, (-AL), who personally committed themselves to trying to approve the , and even caused a public disagreement between the two.
The decision on Zambelli ended up being annulled this Thursday (11) by the STF (Supreme Federal Court), in new strain on the command of the House.
In the PP bench group, Lira stated that the management of the Chamber “is a mess” and that the House needs to be reorganized. He also regretted “the lack of solidarity” of party leaders and deputies with Motta, after the legislative police, and said he was worried about his successor’s management.
Lira was responsible for building the agreement that elected Motta to the position, but the relationship has not been closer since the Bolsonaro riot, when Lira was called to resolve the crisis. The former president was the main defender of Glauber’s impeachment, his enemy and who denounced to the (Supreme Federal Court) the direction of parliamentary amendments by committee without transparency.
Wanted by Sheetthe president of the Chamber did not comment. He countered Lira in an interview with Globonews and said that the presidency of the House “is not driven by individual convenience, nor should it serve as a tool of revanchism.”
Despite Motta and Lira’s demands on the leaders to impeach Glauber, a large part of the Chamber’s lower clergy preferred to maintain their colleague’s mandate, as they understood that what persecuted him was not sufficient reason for impeachment. Without enough votes for this, the alternative constructed was the suspension of the mandate for six months, approved by 318 to 141.
The president of the Chamber also tried to articulate with the leaders the loss of the mandate of Zambelli, who is imprisoned in Italy, but there was not enough support. In this case, there was a mixture of assessment that the process was legally fragile, a message to the STF, which had determined the loss of the mandate, and also the fear of repercussions among the electorate.
Politicians from the center of states most aligned with Bolsonarism reported to the Sheet who were in favor of removing Zambelli’s mandate, but who could not vote in this way to avoid displeasing their voters — in this case, the end of the secret vote, approved in 2013 by Congress to facilitate the impeachment of colleagues accused of crimes, ended up having the opposite effect and served to preserve the mandate.
Other deputies also say that — as expressed by Lira in messages to PP deputies — Motta failed to better coordinate with the parties before taking the issue to a vote. Holding the joint session, in their opinion, gave Glauber more strength, since it would be inconsistent to impeach a deputy for kicking someone and maintain the mandate of a parliamentarian who ran armed after a person on the street.
Motta’s allies justify that the president of the Chamber sought to share the decision with the House, and that each person will bear the responsibility for their vote. For this reason, he simply informed the college of leaders that he would put the issue to a vote, without consulting their opinion in advance.
Deputies heard by Sheet They also state that the result of Wednesday’s session (10) reinforces the tendency for deputy Alexandre Ramagem (PL-RJ), who has been on the run in the United States for two months, to have his mandate preserved in the plenary. The Chamber has already approved by 315 to 143 votes that, before the trial.
The results of the impeachment of a deputy by the Chamber. In addition to the necessary majority being 257 votes, which requires coordination between different ideological wings, many deputies pointed out that votes like these cause tension and do not leave anyone happy.
Another factor is the dissatisfaction of most deputies with the STF. In the cases of Zambelli and Ramagem, the direct sentence to loss of mandate serves as a message to the court, say the parliamentarians.
Motta’s understanding is that the Constitution establishes the loss of mandate. He, however, adopted different rites than in the case of Zambelli and Ramagem — lengthening the deputy’s process and accelerating the deputy’s.
Zambelli’s case was previously sent to the CCJ (Constitution and Justice Commission), while Ramagem’s case will be analyzed directly in the plenary next Wednesday (17). Minister Alexandre de Moraes, however, annulled the Chamber’s vote, and Motta appointed her substitute.
Eduardo Bolsonaro’s case is different, as the risk of impeachment is due to having exceeded the number of absences from plenary sessions and not due to conviction by the STF. Generally, but Motta also decided to speed up the process — he gave Eduardo a defense deadline and stated that the Board will decree the loss of mandate next week.
“Deputy Eduardo Bolsonaro already has a number of absences that are enough to have his mandate revoked. […] We are publishing this compliance with absences today and […] also the deadline for him to be able, in five sessions, to present his defense”, said Motta on Tuesday.
To achieve this, it is necessary that the majority of the seven members of the Board of Directors, including Motta, decide to lose their mandate.
Although Eduardo’s impeachment is considered certain and has even been announced by Motta, the interpretation of PL deputies is that the defeat of the President of the House in relation to Zambelli and Glauber may have weakened him to the point of being challenged by the Board itself. In other words, there would be a loophole to save Eduardo.
This year, Motta has already suffered a defeat at the Table. He proposed the immediate punishment of the mutinous Bolsonarist deputies, but the top of the Chamber formed a majority to delay the result.
