‘Lula has no commitment to public security’ says Derrite after bill vetoes

Federal deputy Guilherme Derrite (PP – SP) said this Tuesday (24) that “Lula has no commitment to public security” for taking a maximum period of 40 days to sanction the “Anti-Faction Bill (PL)”, which legally combats criminal factions in Brazil, and veto two sections considered “very important” for the deputy.

“He [Lula] This project should have been fully sanctioned on the first day it was sent and left the National Congress. He also vetoed two relevant points that criminalize those who favor members of criminal organizations who commit typical conduct in the faction PL, very serious conduct”, Derrite told Jovem Pan.

The president vetoed an excerpt that, according to the government’s understanding, allows people to be included in the new law even without them being proven members of criminal organizations.

Derrite disagreed with the president. “He vetoes this point as if they were not members of the PCC, this is about adequately punishing those who commit these very serious crimes against society and the police. Once again Lula sets the example that he believes in what he has already said that the ‘drug dealer is a victim of society’”said the deputy.

The deputy also said that Lula’s other veto would allocate resources to states and public prosecutors to combat organized crime. “The other veto is just as bad, because it provides for resources to be distributed and divided among the states’ security forces and, with this veto, it is making the fight against organized crime unfeasible,” he explained.

Derrite concluded by saying that he is “very sorry” and that he will work to overturn these two vetoes. “With absolute certainty we will overturn these vetoes”concluded.

President Lula’s vetoes

The first section vetoed by Lula provided for the people involved in actions that could be compared to the activities of criminal organizations also served sentencesin addition to the members of the factions themselves. “The device suffers from unconstitutionality because it distorts the structural logic of the bill by penalizing acts committed by people outside criminal organizations, whose conduct is already typified in the Penal Code, promoting regulatory overlap and legal uncertainty”, explained the president.

The other veto would allocate resources and products seized from organized crime to a fund for the States and the Federal District. The government understood that this would imply a loss of revenue for the Union.

“Under current legislation, the revenue from forfeiture belongs exclusively to the Union. The proposition goes against the public interest as it reduces the Union’s revenue at a time of potential increase in demand for resources from the National Public Security Fund, intended to combat organized crime, as well as the expansion, modernization and qualification of the prison system”, he claimed.