With the focus already turned to the October elections, the temperature of discussions on the opening of a (Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry) has lowered, which reduces the chances of the minister, of the (Supreme Federal Court), issuing an injunction that makes the opening mandatory.
Rapporteur of the request made to the STF by opposition senators, Kassio is in a crossfire. The court’s precedents authorize the court to determine the creation of a parliamentary committee in case of omission by the president of the , as occurred in , in 2021. The minister’s private understanding, however, points to another path.
Kassio understands that the Judiciary must be self-restrained in these situations and avoid interfering in typical Legislative issues.
Furthermore, the creation of Master’s CPI could put him in the spotlight, amid the news that a . At the time of publication of the case, the Sheet He contacted the minister through the Supreme Court’s press office. He did not respond about his son’s contract, but stated that he did not have a close relationship with banker Daniel Vorcaro.
At the same time, the magistrate considers the political cost of burying the Master’s CPI. The fear is that this will be received by society as an attempt to shield himself and his colleagues, whose links with the former banker are at the center of the court’s image crisis.
Even so, the judge’s interlocutors claim that he tends to deny the request. There is also the possibility that the writ of mandamus will continue to be on the back burner, as it has been for more than 20 days. The cooling of the debate in Congress, which no longer pushes so much for the opening of the CPI, also contributes to this scenario.
The assessment among parliamentarians is that the October election is the priority agenda at this time and is already mobilizing Congress to promote a concentrated effort of voting and blended sessions. Given this, a Master CPI would run the risk of being emptied.
The magistrate told assistants that he was not pleased with having been selected as the rapporteur for such a controversial case and that he preferred to ignore this debate, focusing on preparations to take on the role. Taking office is scheduled for May.
The timing of the request — one day after the plenary — was also considered unfavorable by those around the minister. On that occasion, it was clear that there is a majority in the sense that the STF can order the creation of a CPI, but that the extension is a different situation.
Minister Kassio himself stated, in the trial, that the Constitution provides objective and measurable criteria for the creation of a CPI, such as a minimum number of signatures, verification of a specific fact and a certain duration, but that there is not this same clarity in relation to extension.
In the case of Covid’s CPI, five years ago, the trial by the STF plenary took place when the then president of the Senate, (currently at PSB-MG), had already established the commission, complying with the minister’s injunction. Therefore, Kassio’s vote did not delve deeper into this issue.
The minister said, at the time, that the president of the Senate is the one who has “discretion to evaluate, within the criteria of convenience and opportunity, the most appropriate time and form for its installation”, in respect for the Constitution’s so-called system of checks and balances.
“It is prudent, therefore, that the Legislature can evaluate the most appropriate way to install and develop the work of the CPI. In this I do not see any risk of harm. There would be a risk if we recognized that Congress should install and develop the work of the CPI immediately and in any way”, he stated.
