Senators are discussing a change in the criteria for presidents of the Republic which, if approved, will leave heads of government more exposed to this type of process. The idea is to allow a re-elected president to be held accountable for crimes committed in a previous term.
The current law is silent on the topic, but the current understanding is that accountability can only occur for facts related to the same mandate in which there is a request for impeachment.
This was the rule used in the dismissal of (PT). At the beginning of his second term, in 2015, several impeachment requests cited events that occurred the previous year. However, the process that led to the PT’s downfall in 2016 was formally based only on more recent information.
The idea being discussed in the Senate could increase the exposure of presidents to the risk of impeachment because, if it comes into force, it will leave heads of government susceptible to responding for acts carried out over a longer period of time.
The change is analyzed in the new impeachment law project, which is expected to be voted on next year. The rapporteur, Weverton Rocha (PDT-MA), indicated in a draft report that the Sheet had access to accept a suggestion from Senator Paulo Paim (-RS) with this content.
“The President of the Republic, in the event of re-election or if elected again, may be held responsible for acts carried out in a previous term that constitute a crime of responsibility”, says the amendment.
The proposed wording opens a loophole to hold the President of the Republic responsible for events during a previous term as head of the government, even if electoral victories are not followed.
Since re-election was instituted, three presidents have been re-elected (Luiz Inácio da Silva and Dilma Rousseff) and only one has had two non-consecutive terms (Lula, with his current government). He was impeached in his first term and before re-election was instituted.
“With the re-election institute in force, and even in the event of a new election, it is not plausible to adopt the thesis that, once the mandate ends, crimes committed in it are completely ‘erased’ from history”, declared Paim in defense of his amendment.
In the draft, Weverton states that there has already been “great discussion” about the possibility of holding a president responsible for actions in past governments. “The best reading of the Constitution seems to be in the sense that re-election does not exempt the re-elected person from the wrongdoings of the previous term”, wrote the rapporteur.
At the end of 2015, when he decided to proceed with Dilma’s impeachment, the then president of the Chamber, cut events prior to the head of government’s current term from the request for deposition.
“I left out the [fatos] of the previous mandate because I felt it was not appropriate. So, if he wasn’t re-elected, how would he be punished? Especially because the only penalty is the loss of office,” Cunha told Sheet. “Now, if it clearly establishes in the law that there is a specific punishment, it is not at all wrong,” he declared.
One of the main changes proposed by the original bill for the new impeachment law is to establish a period of 30 working days for the presidents of the Chamber and Senate, depending on the authority targeted by the request, to decide on the progress of impeachment processes. If the request is rejected, congressmen could file appeals to force the process to continue.
The original project stipulated that this appeal can be presented if there is support from a third of the members of the Chamber or Senate. In the draft proposal, the rapporteur increases this number to two thirds, under the argument that parliamentary minorities could use the instrument as “retaliation or political intimidation”.
The measure would be to “prevent opportunistic attacks and ensure institutional stability in the face of the seriousness of the impeachment process”, wrote Weverton. The rapporteur also stated, in the draft, that the period of 30 working days is too long and accepted a suggestion to reduce it by half.
The project discussed under Weverton’s report is from the former president of the Senate (-MG). The text provides general rules for impeachment of various authorities, such as ministers of State, ministers of the (Federal Supreme Court) and commanders of the Armed Forces, in addition to presidents of the Republic.
The proposal is for 2023, but after the STF minister decided that, shielding the magistrates.
Current law allows anyone to submit such requests, and gives the president of the Senate the prerogative to initiate the process or not. In practice, Gilmar’s decision reduced the power of the head of the House, who previously did not depend on the PGR to initiate the impeachment of a minister.
The minister’s decision provoked. After , .
The project discussed by the senators that requests for impeachment can be presented by political parties represented in Congress, by the OAB (Brazilian Bar Association), by professional associations and by popular initiative that has at least 1.56 million signatures at the federal level.
