The Attorney General of the Republic, defended this Thursday (18) the validity of the same after decisions by the minister, of the (Supreme Federal Court), for even a definition on the topic by the court’s plenary.
The statement was sent to Moraes, rapporteur of the actions that question the legislation approved by and that could reduce the sentences of the former president () and others and for the coup acts of January 8, 2023.
According to , Congress has the autonomy to define criminal policies and regime progression criteria. Gonet assesses the changes promoted by the technical and that there was no disrespect to the rite or illicit legislative casuistry.
Furthermore, the head of the Public Ministry also says, in the demonstration, that the argument that the law hides an amnesty is weak. This is because the amnesty “erases the criminal effects of the amnestied fact and has its own constitutional discipline”.
“The law, on the other hand, does not declare punishability extinct, does not eliminate the typicality of crimes against the Democratic Rule of Law, does not revoke convictions and does not prevent the criminal liability of perpetrators, merely modifying legal criteria for dosimetry and criminal execution. Even though such changes may produce favorable effects for certain convicts, this is not enough to convert the diploma into an act of clemency incompatible with the Constitution.”
Gonet also states that the law does not individualize beneficiaries, does not mention specific people, is not formally limited to the attacks of January 8, 2023, nor does it condition the incidence on the existence of specific convictions handed down by the Supreme Court.
“Concrete events, public controversies or institutional diagnoses provoked by historical situations are natural incentive factors for legislative action. Innovations in positive law occur precisely due to the perception that reality involves or demands a different regulatory framework. Certainly this does not make such normative acts necessarily and unduly casuistic”, he said.
In the document, the PGR says it is presenting its position only on the need to suspend the law and is opposing this possibility.
“The Constitution does not prevent the legislator from reassessing, for reasons of criminal policy, the criminal or enforcement treatment given to certain categories of crimes, nor, much less, from doing so, taking into account the practical results that the application of the diploma it had previously issued”, he said.
According to Gonet, not every criminal law that is more beneficial to known convicts and enacted in a specific political context will be unconstitutional. Furthermore, the retroaction of the most favorable law is a constitutional guarantee.
as to Sheet showed, court ministers say they are betting on a broad confirmation of the same after decisions by Moraes for even a definition on the topic by the plenary.
Still according to these reports, the STF’s tendency should be to validate the Dosimetry Law even for and with the majority of congressmen. The bill was approved by a large majority in December, ended up being vetoed by (PT) and, again, most parliamentarians were in favor of the law,
Legislative interlocutors Moraes justified his decision as necessary to seek legal certainty, that is, to not run the risk of prisoners from January 8 being released based on a law that, later on, would be considered unconstitutional.
The actions that question the constitutionality of the law were presented by the federation -Rede, the ABI (Brazilian Press Association), the PT, the PDT, the PV and the PC do B. They claim that the contested provisions unduly reduce the criminal protection afforded to the democratic order and create privileged treatment for those convicted of crimes committed against it.
Moraes himself was chosen to lead the process. Therefore, in addition to reporting cases related to the coup plot, the minister also conducts actions to reduce sentences for crimes related to the cases.
Therefore, it is up to the judge to dictate the pace of progress of these actions, including the moment in which they will go to the plenary for judgment. So far, he has only asked for information from the parties, the Presidency and Congress, on the matter, as is customary.
Through them, he could grant an injunction to temporarily suspend the law in general. But this would, according to the court’s internal rules, necessarily lead to the decision being sent to a plenary referendum.
For now, the minister only issued orders in specific cases, which do not require automatic peer assessment.
Moraes was one of the STF ministers to maintain a dialogue channel with parliamentarians about the contours of the bill, even giving concrete suggestions for drafting the text.
Advisors and assistants to ministers assess that the validity of the Dosimetry Law can help to cool tensions, while preserving the power of the STF in executing sentences.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
