The Board of Directors of the Chamber of Deputies decreed, this Thursday (18), the (PL-SP), based on excessive absences from the plenary, without the decision implying loss of political rights or ineligibility for the 2026 elections.
The difference in relation to other recently impeached parliamentarians, such as the case of Carla Zambelli and Alexandre Ramagem, lies in the legal basis of the decision and the electoral consequences provided for in the legislation.
Eduardo’s impeachment was formalized based on excessive absences from the plenary session, an objective criterion provided for in the Constitution and the Chamber’s rules of procedure. The deputy accumulated 59 absences, a number above the allowed limit while he remained outside the country, in the United States, and was previously notified of the risk of losing his mandate.
Continues after advertising
After the deadline for manifestation, the Board of Directors confirmed the revocation administratively, without the need for a vote in plenary.
Administrative revocation
Electoral legislation establishes that ineligibility arises from a criminal conviction that has become final or from specific judicial decisions that determine the loss of political rights. In the case of Eduardo Bolsonaro, there is no criminal sentence. Revocation for absences does not imply suspension of political rights, which preserves your eligibility status for 2026.
This is the main point that differentiates Eduardo’s case from those of Carla Zambelli and Alexandre Ramagem. Both were criminally convicted by the Federal Supreme Court, with penalties including loss of office and, as an automatic effect, ineligibility.
Distinctive scenario
Alexandre Ramagem had his mandate revoked by the Board of Directors of the Chamber for the same formal reason applied to Eduardo Bolsonaro, excessive absences. The decision, however, occurred in a different context. Ramagem had already been convicted by the STF for crimes linked to the attempted coup d’état and sentenced to the loss of his parliamentary mandate, in addition to a prison sentence.
To avoid further political wear and tear, after the episode involving Carla Zambelli, in which the plenary of the House, the president of the House, Hugo Motta, chose not to take Ramagem’s case to a vote by the deputies. The alternative found was to apply administrative impeachment for absences, ending the mandate without submitting the decision to the plenary.
Although the instrument used was the same, the consequences were not. Ramagem remains ineligible because the restriction arises from the criminal conviction, and not from the administrative act of the Chamber.
Continues after advertising
