Request requests the adoption of hybrid voting and the reduction of the minimum quorum for approval of the agenda
The impeachment process did not stop in court. A group of counselors filed a lawsuit asking for changes to the meeting that determines the provisional removal of the president of São Paulo. The adoption of hybrid voting and the reduction of the minimum quorum for approval of the agenda are requested. O. The second call came after confusion caused by the São Paulo Statute. Article 112 provides for the dismissal with a vote of two thirds (171) of the directors. Article 58, considered in the second call, points to dismissal as one of the measures that requires 75% approval from the Deliberative Council (191 votes).
The request in court is that the number referring to two thirds of the councilors be considered again as a quorum for approving Casares’ removal. The argument for the first change (from 171 to 191) is that, in ambiguity, the norm that favors the accused must prevail. “I am serving the interests of São Paulo. None of the decisions violated the Statute of São Paulo”, explained the president of the Deliberative Council, Olten Ayres de Abreu Júnior, about the change, denying favoritism to Casares.
“We have, incredible as it may seem, two articles that deal with the same subject”, he acknowledged the contradiction and explained that the choice for 58 is based on the legal principle called In dubio pro reo (“when in doubt, in favor of the defendant”, in free translation). The action has an injunction request, so that it can be judged quickly. It is also requested that the voting system be hybrid, with online and in-person voting. Olten had already denied this request from the opposition, which went to court. Other meetings that discussed disciplinary issues for counselors have already had a hybrid vote in this administration.
“The votes to remove the president are about a delicate issue. It affects the structure and credibility of the club. When it comes to a secret vote, we believe that it should lead to an in-person vote”, said Olten to explain the denial. “The impeachment of a president is of much greater importance, violent importance and affects the life of the club in a profound way. There would certainly be, if we didn’t do the in-person vote, a challenge”, he added.
*With information from Estadão Conteúdo
