“Lula government is centralizing in security,” says Mendonça Filho, rapporteur of PEC
Brasília-Appointed rapporteur of the Proposed Amendment to the Constitution (PEC) of Public Security in the Chamber Constitution and Justice Commission, the deputy and former Minister Mendonça Filho (Union-PE) is a staunch critic of the Lula administration. He promises, in conducting the work, to hear the opinion of the governors and the Minister of Justice, Ricardo Lewandowski. “We may even have disagreements, but I respect it,” he says in an interview with Infomoney.
According to the rapporteur, “the government has a very centralizing mindset, coordination and centralization in Brasilia” regarding security, but says it will not anticipate anything before hearing the actors involved. “The main demand of the people today is security,” he adds.
União Brasil, the deputy’s party, has just come together with the PP in a federation, ensuring the largest bench of the National Congress. He defends, within the group,
the removal of the government and an opposition positioning. “My field of action is liberal, from the right center and I think PT government needs to get out of power in 2026,” he argues.
Among the possible presidential presidential, he cites, as main names, the governor of Goiás, Ronaldo Caiado, as well as the governors of Paraná, Ratinho Jr., and São Paulo, Tarcísio de Freitas. According to him, even ineligible, former President Jair Bolsonaro should participate in the discussions.
Deputy Mendonça Filho, who was Minister of Education in the Michel Temer Government (MDB), says he is favorable to a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (CPI) to investigate the deviations in the INSS. “Anyone who is to blame for the registry, in the current government or the previous government has to pay. For me, this is an absolutely abject and immoral scandal with all the letters, because it goes on a poor retiree,” he adds.
Check below the interview of Deputy Mendonça Filho to Infomoney:
Infomoney: You will be the security rapporteur sent by the Federal Government at the House CCJ. Does it cause a malaise for the rapporteur to have been in the hands of an opposition deputy?
Mendonça Filho: If you have discomfort or stop having my problem. It’s their problem. I have credentials to be a rapporteur, modesty aside, of many subjects, because I have a very wide trajectory. Few people in Congress have the experience I have, because I managed the area of public safety, I know inside. I started my life very early as a state deputy, I was secretary of state, I was deputy governor for almost eight years and was governor for almost 12 months. I know the safety structure inside, whose responsibility is eminently and constitutionally state. I feel absolutely legitimized and with credentials to be the rapporteur. If the government finds it bad, it is the government problem.
Im: In your report, do you want to maintain the government project base or do you think you need changes?
MF: My mission in the CCJ deals with admissibility, legality and constitutionality. That is, my radius, from the point of view of text change, is restricted to these aspects. It is not wide enough to enter the theme of public safety more effectively, as I would like and how I think Brazil needs, a constitutional and legal framework that allows to meet the demands of society. It is important to say very clearly that the main demand of the people today is public safety. The poor who lives in community, the middle class, and even the rich. But the rich have armored car, surveillance at the door, and the poor often finds themselves massacred by an environment of violence that contaminates the medium and large cities. In addition, drug trafficking, criminal factions are dominating Brazil, even from a territorial point of view.
In the constitutional aspect, I will consider two main grounds: the Federation, which is a stone clause of Brazil and has attributed to states this competence; and the autonomy of states in the competence of providing public safety for society. The government has a very centralizing mindset, coordination and centralization in Brasilia, but I don’t want to anticipate anything, because we are still starting with public hearings, listening to Justice Minister Ricardo Lewandowski. We may even have disagreements, but I respect it. So he will be the first person to be heard. And then I want to hear the representation of states through governors who have a lot to say, because, after all, they have constitutional and legal, federative responsibility to provide the fight against violence in everyday life. I am organizing these two requirements that should be voted.
Im: What central points should be present in the report?
MF: I won’t say what to do before listening to people, I have no idea ready. With all the clarity and loyalty, I need to hear the characters, feel the political environment and build a text. Because the text needs to be approved and, for that, it must contemplate these aspects that I have just mentioned.
Im: União Brasil and the PP announced a federation, which became the greatest force of the opposition. What will be the north of this group?
MF: I can’t talk about the Federation. Personally, I always adopted a much more critical posture and searching for the self -affirmation of União Brasil itself, the consolidation of the merger we made between DEM and PSL. So, I don’t feel free to speak on behalf of the Federation. Within the federation, what I will defend, since I am part of it, is the removal of the government and an opposition positioning, because this is my field. I do not tergive. My field of action is liberal, from the right center and I think PT government needs to leave power in 2026. Brazil needs to move forward and I think they are a disturbing distance from Brazil
IM: Should the Federation have its own candidate?
MF: It has a name in the group already placed, which is Governor Caiado, who for me is an extraordinary picture, a governor who has something to show in the security area, and even in the area of education. I consider Caiado super qualified to run for the presidency. Now, besides the name of Caiado, I defend the expansion in the right center field. Then we need to look for as many forces as possible. It has relevant names, such as PSD Mouse Jr., Tarcísio de Freitas who is in Republicans and also need to be considered. And it has pockets through former President Jair Bolsonaro, who also needs to be called to discussion and debate. Today, it is ineligible, it cannot be a character, but it cannot be described or excluded from this discussion. On the contrary, it has a relevant role in the definition of directions regarding the succession process of 2026.
IM: Does the junction of the two parties generate a dispute within the group?
MF: Overall, for sure. It is not an easy adaptation, it is not an easy governance. They are leaders, each regionally with great weight, and, nationally also with great expression. So I see this with my feet on the ground, that is, it is a reality that we need to face. An important challenge for party leaders, of the two parties today who are forming this federation. Many “DRS” will still be needed.
IM: The House already has the number of signatures necessary for the creation of an INSS Parliamentary Parliamentary Committee (CPI). Do you support this CPI?
MF: I am one of the first deputies to subscribe to CPI. I am 17th name of the relationship. For me, this CPI is absolutely necessary. A few times in the history of Parliament, we had such a relevant and necessary opportunity to install a CPI like this. It is the biggest scandal in the history of the INSS, a theft of over $ 6.5 billion, taking from poor people, installments of $ 50.00 per month. A clearly criminal organization that has taken over the spaces of the Ministry of Social Security and the INSS to take money from simple people; retired and pensioners from all over the country. It is essential that Congress can participate in this investigation process, all these crimes that are being reported by the press, determined by the Federal Police and the Comptroller General of the Union (CGU).
IM: The investigation says the crimes did not start in the Lula administration, but in the Bolsonaro government. Is the Lord in favor of opening this box donates to who hurt?
MF: I have no pet criminal. Criminals have to be in jail, whoever it is, regardless of ideology. The detection, the identification of the criminal act took place in 2023, already in the Lula administration. The PT’s old narrative tries to expand crime to avoid investigation. Anyone who is to blame for the registry, the current government or the previous government, has to pay. For me, this is an absolutely abject and immoral scandal with all the letters, because it goes on a poor retiree. About 70% of retirees earn up to one minimum wage. These are people who have sweaty all their lives, working to earn a small retirement and arrives, at one time of these, a gang arises the right to get their money this way. For me, you have to find out completely. Now, clearly, there was neglect, prevarication and criminal performance of the current INSS managers and the Ministry of Social Security. The president of the INSS has already fallen, there are facts being revealed, and I think we have to find out, donates to those who hurt, so that this issue is fully clarified.
IM: Why do you think there was fraud in the current government and not the previous one?
MF: I am not saying that there was not in the previous government, I am saying that GCU notified the Ministry of Social Security in 2023. I am not saying that there was no crime or criminal fact before the Lula administration. I am saying that they all end up. If you have someone involved in the previous government, which punishes. But the identification of the crime was in 2023. The minister spent more than a year, was notified, attended a meeting of the National Social Security Council, was informed and did not adopt any action. He prevailed clearly. If there was the same with another president of the INSS or another minister, who punishes. But I’m just reproducing what the Federal Police has so far informed officially, along with CGU.
IM: Can you believe that this scandal can eventually contaminate the congress agenda to the point of disturbing the processing of the security PEC?
MF: These are distinct things. I do not believe that regular work will be compromised. It is logical that given the relevance of the scandal and also the extremely large social repercussion, the subject tends to take the headlines and the agenda of the parliament itself. I have no doubt that this will happen. Reflection for the agenda of Parliament as a whole there will be, but I do not believe it affects, does not prevent, for example the processing of the security PEC.
