The majority of members of the Board of Directors of the Chamber, chaired by (-PB), decided to declare, this Thursday (18), the revocation of the mandates of (-SP) and (PL-RJ).
The measure was made official during the afternoon in an edition of the Official House Gazette. The defense period given to the two deputies ended on Wednesday (17). Motta had said last week that it starts this Friday (19).
Eduardo, who has been in the United States since March, was threatened with impeachment due to excessive absences from Chamber sessions this year.
Already during the trial of the (Supreme Federal Court) that is 16 years and one month in State prison.
Motta, however, used the deputy’s future absences as an argument for impeachment. In this way, he avoids entering into a discussion with the STF about who has the final say in the case of loss of mandate due to a criminal conviction.
Upon being convicted by the STF, Ramagem lost his political rights for eight years. Eduardo’s impeachment for absences, on the contrary, does not affect his political rights, that is, he can run in 2026.
The substitutes taking over are Missionário José Olímpio (PL-SP) and Dr. Flávio (PL-RJ).
The Board is made up of Motta and six other full members, as well as four substitutes. Among the incumbents, in addition to Motta, deputies Lula da Fonte (PP-PE), Delegate Katarina (PSD-SE) and Carlos Veras (PT-PE) signed in favor of the impeachment. Of the substitutes, Paulo Folletto (PSB-ES), Antonio Carlos Rodrigues (PL-SP) and Dr. Victor Linhalis (Podemos-ES) also endorsed the loss of mandate.
Deputies Elmar Nascimento (União Brasil-BA), Sergio Souza (MDB-PR) and Altineu Côrtes (PL-RJ), as well as Paulo Alexandre Barbosa (PSDB-SP), who is a substitute, did not sign the letter.
The leader of the PL in the Chamber, (RJ), stated that he is studying the legal and regulatory means to appeal. He also said that the two deputies are in exile due to what he considers persecution by the Judiciary and attributed Motta’s decision to pressure from STF ministers.
“It is a political decision that removes the plenary’s right to deliberate and transforms the Board into an instrument for automatically validating external pressure. When mandates are revoked without the vote of the deputies, Parliament ceases to be a Power and becomes a guardian”, he wrote on the networks.
“It is a total subservience of the Legislative Branch to the whims of some ministers of the Federal Supreme Court,” he told journalists.
Senator Flávio Bolsonaro (PL-RJ) also criticized Motta’s decision on social media. “It is a mistake to remove the mandates of deputies Eduardo Bolsonaro and Alexandre Ramagem! They are persecuted politicians! They are not out of Brazil because they want to, but because of the bizarre persecutory system in force in Brazil — which can be called anything but full democracy,” he wrote in X.
Last week, in up to five sessions and announced that, after that deadline, it would determine the impeachment of the son of the former president (PL).
The Constitution establishes in its article 55 that a deputy or senator who misses one third of the year’s ordinary sessions will lose their mandate, unless on leave or on an official mission. According to the president of the Chamber, Eduardo has already surpassed this mark.
“The deputy, as everyone knows, is abroad by his decision. It is impossible to exercise the parliamentary mandate outside the national territory. […] The Board must present the result for the revocation of his mandate”, said Motta, on the 9th.
In a video released on X, Eduardo stated that he was impeached for doing “exactly what my voters expect from me.”
“Even though there are people who say that I’m in the United States by choice, I tell you: it was worth it. And it was really worth it to have been able to bring real consequences to these dictators,” he said, in response to Motta’s statement.
Regarding the impeachment of Ramagem, to avoid repeating what happened in the case of (PL-SP) last week, which led to a clash with the Supreme Court.
The president of the House sent the impeachment of the deputy, also condemned by the STF to loss of mandate, for deliberation by the plenary. The following day, however, the court approved the loss of mandate.
At first, Motta announced that Ramagem’s case would follow the same procedure, with deliberation in the plenary. Given the dispute with the STF, however, it was decided that the revocation would be determined by the Board of Directors. But he revoked him “in view of the fact that he will no longer attend, in the subsequent legislative session, a third of the deliberative sessions.”
With this, the president of the Chamber avoided complying with the STF decision that ordered the immediate loss of his mandate due to the conviction – some of the deputies argued that the revocation would depend on a decision by the plenary and was not automatic.
In an interview, Sóstenes criticized the impeachment via the Board of Directors and defended that Ramagem’s case be taken to the plenary, like Zambelli’s.
“It would never be up to the Board to deliberate in this way. Proof is that, last week, Motta brought Carla Zambelli’s case to the plenary. But what happened? The dictatorship of some STF ministers once again imposed the Chamber’s subservience. And then, of course, the Board, to try to avoid shame and subservience, prefers to take a shortcut instead of following the constitutional text”, he said.
In relation to Eduardo, there are two fronts of contestation raised by Bolsonarist deputies. They argue that the rule on absences applies to ordinary sessions, while sessions in the Chamber have been extraordinary. The opposite reading is that as extraordinary sessions are the practice, the rule also applies to them.
Furthermore, the practice in the Chamber is from the following year, according to , which was not followed in relation to Eduardo.
This act was used by the Chamber recently, during Motta’s administration, in April this year. The decision was based on the 2024 absences recorded in the name of the parliamentarian, under accusations of being one of the masterminds behind the murder of the councilor (PSOL) and the driver Anderson Gomes, in 2018.
The Chamber’s internal regulations provide in article 240 that any deputy or party may, without a defined date, provoke the Board to declare the loss of the deputy’s mandate due to absences. It establishes, however, that this must be done “in accordance with specific procedures established in the act” and through “ample defense” of the accused.
In September, Motta even blocked a PL maneuver to circumvent Eduardo’s fouls. The deputy, since leaders do not need to justify their absences, but the designation was not accepted by the president of the House.
Representative Caroline de Toni (PL-SC) stated that her colleagues were impeached without the right to full defense. “Revocation of mandate is not a bureaucratic order. It is a measure that requires respect for due process and the Constitution. […] Very dangerous precedent”, he published.
Lindbergh Farias (RJ), leader of the PT, celebrated and said that the Chamber “extinguished the fugitive bench”.
“The parliamentary mandate is neither a shield against Justice nor a safe conduct for the abandonment of public functions”, he added.
PSB leader, Pedro Campos (PE), stated that the decision was correct. “The Chamber cannot serve as a shelter for those who disrespect the Constitution,” he said.
Eduardo traveled to the USA in March, from where he led a campaign for American President Donald Trump to impose punishments on Brazilian authorities, in addition to organizing tariffs on Brazilian products, with the aim of freeing his father from prison. He says he traveled abroad because he suffered persecution in Brazil.
Because of his work abroad, Eduardo became .
Despite his son’s efforts, he spent 27 years and 3 months in prison for participating in the coup plot and is imprisoned at the PF headquarters in Brasília. Last week, the US removed sanctions applied against the minister, which also weakened the deputy’s political position.
Ramagem would have moved in September to a luxury condominium in Florida, while recording videos and voting remotely in the Chamber sessions, supported by a medical certificate.
The parliamentarian, former director general of Abin (Brazilian Intelligence Agency), was accused of being one of those responsible for preparing Bolsonaro’s speech against the , in what would be the initial stage of a plan to keep the then president in charge of the Palácio do Planalto even in the event of a possible defeat in the presidential elections. The parliamentarian’s defense denied all accusations.
