It may be a coincidence or a mere impression, but that certain attitudes of Supreme Court ministers and presidents of the Chamber spread an aroma of operation in the air, this is evident.
No breaches of secrecy approved in committees of inquiry are annulled and guests and those invited to attend CPIs are freed, while in Congress the deputy () and the senator () prohibit the extension of and prevent investigations into the .
The arguments presented have their foundations, but the practical result is that the parliamentarians’ prerogative to carry out investigations in the political sphere is being revoked. Much is said about the loss of usefulness of commissions of inquiry, used as a means of exhibitionism and other more serious reasons.
It is true, but this deformity will not be corrected by imposing restrictions that paralyze work and imprison the CPIs as a mere circus. When serious parliamentarians are prevented from doing what gives them the power, one of the functions of the Legislative Power is revoked due to lack of use.
It may be just an impression, but it seems that there are vested interests in discrediting the commissions of inquiry. If there are troublemakers who disrupt the environment, the Parliament command must take action against them. Or do the shouting, beatings and abuse constitute a breach of decorum?
If it weren’t for the visibility of these commissions, we wouldn’t have the impeachment of the Budget dwarfs, the discovery of the Fiat Elba that overthrew Fernando Collor, the convictions of the Mensalão based on the testimonies in the . These are exceptions and, as such, justify the rule for this type of investigation.
It could be, but it is no coincidence that since then we have not seen any effectiveness in parliamentary inquiries. Partly their own fault; in large part — perhaps the largest — due to interference disguised as respect for due legal process.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
