PEC of shielding practically prohibits arresting deputies and senators, says jurist

In the week when the Federal Supreme Court begins the trial of former President Jair Bolsonaro and the other members of the so-called “nucleus 1” for attempted coup d’état, congressional parliamentarians try to articulate the “PEC of Armagem”, which creates a series of proceedings restrictions against deputies and senators.

Also read: Gilmar Mendes speaks of “Casuism” and asks “judgment” in the vote of the forum PEC

Despite the pressure of pocket parliamentarians, the mayor, Hugo Motta (Republicans-PB), did not put the proposal in a vote last week for lack of consensus. But the pressure continues.

For lawyer and jurist Lenio Streck, the project contradicts the Constitution for hurting the equality and equality of people before the judiciary, when creating difficulties to process parliamentarians. “In practice, deputies and senators would be prohibited from being arrested,” the lawyer told Infomoney.

The jurist evaluates that the text will undergo changes in Congress and, even if approved, can be barred by the Federal Supreme Court because it is unconstitutional. “Times require mechanisms to combat impunity and not to facilitate the parliamentarian not to be judged,” he said.

See the main excerpts of the interview with Lenio Streck:

Infoomoney – The Armage PEC predicts the return of the prior authorization for parliamentary investigation, which ceased to exist in 2001. Do you consider it to be a setback?

Lenio Streck – Yes, because when the constitution was made there was a context for that. We were with an authoritarian regime, in which parliamentarians were actually persecuted for their opinions against the regime and not for such infractions today. Today’s context does not justify a return to what was prior authorization for investigation. After all, 36 years of constitution are sufficient to understand, for example, that times require mechanisms to combat impunity and not to facilitate that the parliamentarian is not judged, because this is the question. The name PEC of the armor has never been so strong. It is like a lego game that one little fits the other. This is a name that fits very strongly to the proposal.

IM – Another point provided for in the proposal is the need for two thirds of the Supreme to convict deputies and senators. What is the opinion of the Lord about this?

LS “It never existed because it would hurt isonomy.” This would make the whole legal system change, because deputy would have to have two thirds. Then the jury, for example, to condemn someone for murder on the jury, would have to have no more four to three, but five, six votes. Imagine what it would be like to condemn someone in the jury court. This is a legal teratology that makes no sense.

IM – Do you think public opinion understands what this means? Does it affect the image of Parliament?

LS – It will take a while for people to understand. The big problem is that Congress can approve this before the population knows and being able to protest. It is not an easy subject for people to understand, for example, what is the difference in simple majority quorum and two -thirds. It is not easy for people to understand that, for example, for a deputy to be prosecuted first, it has to be allowed to start the investigation, while an ordinary citizen is investigated directly within the police station.

IM – The project also brings other issues, such as conditioning pre -trial detention and anklet use to the endorsement of two thirds of the STF ministers and then the deliberation of the Legislative House. What is your assessment of this point?

LS – In practice, deputies and senators would be prohibited from being arrested. While the citizen is arrested for any authority, by monocratic decision, a district judge has any citizen arrests. Now, if you are a deputy or senator, you need to have two thirds of the Supreme and the House of Representatives or Senate. Really, we are creating an organ. That animal that we don’t know well what it is.

IM – In your assessment, will you have pressure for the text to be at least modified?

LS “My impression is that Parliament will fall into itself and will not vote the text as it is.” If suddenly approved, this issue of two thirds, for example, the Supreme itself must consider unconstitutional.

IM – Are there other points in this PEC that can be considered unconstitutional?

LS – Yes, for two reasons. One for hurting the Constitution with regard to equality and equality. Another because matters that are the subject of law should not be dealt with by constitutional amendment. They decided to do it because the bill can be vetoed by the president, and the constitutional amendment does not. Parliament can also overthrow the president’s veto, but all this takes. In the case of a PEC, it’s just themselves who decide. They can approve PEC on a day and the other day it is already worth.

IM – The text prohibits that the judiciary reviews Congress decisions that suspend investigations or criminal proceedings. Does this mean that if deputies or senators decide to stop a process the supreme could not reverse the decision?

LS – This hurts the issue of balance between powers and is unconstitutional, because the last word in democracy is always from the Supreme Court.