Senator Carlos Viana states that block voting is a consolidated practice and was validated by Davi Alcolumbre
The president of the INSS CPMI, senator (Podemos-MG), released a note this Thursday (5.Mar.2026) in which he expresses “deep institutional concern” with the decision of the minister, the STF (Supreme Federal Court), approved by the Commission’s collegiate body, including that of Lulinha.
Viana classified the injunction as an episode that reaches the “delicate balance” between the powers. According to the senator, it strictly followed the Rules of Procedure and the Constitution, having been ratified by the presidency of the National Congress, held by Davi Alcolumbre (União Brasil-AP)
The decision nullifies the validity of the vote held on February 26, when dozens of applications were approved “across the globe”, without individual analysis.
Among those affected by the measure is , known as Lulinha.
Dino stated that, although CPIs and CPMIs have the power to determine , when exercising this attribution, they assume a role similar to that of a judge. Therefore, they must observe the same duties as a magistrate, which requires technical justification for each person investigated and voting on a case-by-case basis.
DEFENSE OF THE RITE
The senator refuted the thesis that “global” voting on requests is an irregularity. Viana argued that the procedure is a “consolidated practice” in Parliament and was used in recent high-profile commissions, such as the CPI on the Pandemic and the CPMI on the acts of January 8th.
“The CPIs have a fixed deadline. If each request had to be discussed in isolation, many commissions would simply not be able to fulfill their constitutional mission“, stated the president of the collegiate. He assured that each approved request had its own legal basis attached to the text.
JUSTICE FOR RETIREES
The note emphasizes that the interruption of investigative measures occurs at a time when the investigation was progressing into “structures that need to be clarified”. Viana highlighted that CPMI’s focus is to seek justice for millions of retirees and pensioners who may have been victims of misappropriation of resources.
“When a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry approves investigative measures, it does not exercise a political gesture. It exercises a constitutional duty”, concluded the parliamentarian. The CPMI leadership must now assess whether it will appeal the decision to the plenary of the Federal Supreme Court.
Read the note in full:
“Official Note from the President of the INSS CPMI – Senator Carlos Viana – MG
“I receive with deep institutional concern and republican indignation the preliminary decision handed down by Minister Flávio Dino that suspends the effects of the breach of secrecy approved by the Joint Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry that investigates the scandal involving the INSS.
“The decision comes after the Presidency of the National Congress itself, held by Senator Davi Alcolumbre, formally analyzed the questions presented and concluded that the vote carried out by CPMI fully complied with the Rules of Procedure and the Constitution of the Republic.
“Therefore, we are not facing a simple procedural divergence.
“We are facing an episode that directly touches on the delicate institutional balance between the Powers of the Republic.
“The Brazilian Parliament made a legitimate decision, within its constitutional investigative prerogatives, and this decision has just been interrupted exactly at the moment when the investigation begins to reach structures that need to be clarified to society.
“It is important that the country understands what is at stake.
“We are talking about an investigation that seeks to clarify one of the most revolting episodes in the recent history of Brazil.
“Millions of retirees and pensioners.
“Brazilians who have worked their entire lives.
“Men and women who contributed for decades believing that the State would be by their side when they needed it most.
“And now they discover that they may have been victims of a scheme that diverted resources from those who most depend on public protection.
“We are talking about people who depend on benefits to buy medicine, pay basic bills and maintain their dignity after a lifetime of work.
“This is not just a parliamentary investigation.
“It is an investigation that seeks justice for millions of vulnerable Brazilians.
“And that’s exactly why Parliament decided to act.
“The Constitution of the Republic is clear in establishing that it is up to the National Congress to monitor and investigate serious facts involving public resources and the functioning of the State.
“When a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry approves investigative measures, it does not make a political gesture.
“She exercises a constitutional duty.
“It is important to clarify another fundamental point.
“The block voting procedure for investigative requests is not an innovation by this Commission.
“It is a consolidated practice of the Brazilian Parliament over decades of operation of Parliamentary Inquiry Commissions.
“Several historical CPIs adopted exactly this same procedure.
“The Pandemic CPI approved dozens of investigative requests in joint votes.
“The CPMI of the January 8 acts also used block votes to authorize investigative measures.
“The CPI of Correios, the CPI of Petrobras and countless other commissions used the same regulatory dynamics to guarantee speedy work.
“This happens for an objective reason.
“CPIs have a fixed deadline.
“These are investigations that need to gather evidence, hear witnesses, request documents and present results within a limited period.
“If each request had to be discussed in isolation during long sessions, many CPIs would simply not be able to fulfill their constitutional mission.
“That is why the Congressional Rules allow symbolic and global voting on requests, as long as they are accompanied by written reasons.
“And that’s exactly what happened.
“Each approved application contains its own legal justification.
“Each application presents elements that demonstrate the need for the investigative measure.
“And when parliamentarians approve these requests, they also approve the reasons that accompany them.
“This is the normal functioning of the Parliamentary Commissions of Inquiry.
“This is how the Brazilian Parliament has investigated major national scandals over the last few decades.”
