“The PEC of the Armage was designed to defend a bandit,” says rapporteur in the Senate

The Rapporteur of the PEC of the Armage in the Constitution and Justice Commission, Senator Alessandro Vieira (MDB-SE), states that the proposal is absurd about any point of view and will defend the filing in the CCJ both because it is unconstitutional and by merit.

Vieira believes that PEC will be rejected on Wednesday (24) at the CCJ. The proposal was already rejection of the Senate and this weekend’s demonstrations helped increase the wear and tear of voting in favor.

“This PEC is formally unconstitutional. It has problems of constitutionality and in merit is also absurd. It is a PEC that was designed to defend bandit,” he says.

Also read: Senators change their position and declare themselves against the PEC of the armor

According to him, the text protects not only deputies and senators, but also members of the Legislative Assemblies, the District Chamber and the presidents of parties. “It’s a complete horrors show,” adds the senator who is in his first term and was a police officer before he was elected.

Vieira also says that current legislation already guarantees parliamentarians freedom to express themselves and do political work. Read below the interview.

Infomoney – Do you consider a mission to report this proposal of amendment to the Constitution, so controversial, here in the Senate?

Alessandro Vieira -Yes, it was a demand from the chairman of the Constitution and Justice Commission, Otto Alencar (PSD-BA), for me, but that fits what I was already doing, with the demonstration that I had already presented to do in a technical, serious and sober defense of the best right and benefit in Brazil. It is an absurd PEC about any point of view you imagined.

IM – Why do you consider PEC absurd?

Av – This PEC is formally unconstitutional. It has problems of constitutionality and on merit is also absurd. It is a PEC that was designed to defend a bad guy, has no other use but an extreme defense of bandits of any kind. And worse, it has national coverage, so it also serves for legislative assemblies, the district chamber and the presidents of parties. I mean, it’s a complete horrors show. This has no fit.

IM – We should assume that the legislature is not to be a band of bandits. Correct?

Av – Exactly. It is in the Constitution: Anyone must be treated equally. Of course, the parliamentarian needs to have, and already has a guarantee of freedom to express himself, to do political work. This has always been in the Constitution, has been reviewed in 2001 and remains so far. So for your speeches, thoughts, votes, the parliamentarian has immunity. Of course, since linked to your work. It makes no sense to create an immunity that allows you to commit any crimes of any kind and only to be investigated and processed if my parliamentarians agree.

When we had a similar rule between 1988 and 2001, they were hundreds of requests for investigation and, practically, none granted. Even in very serious cases of homicides, drug trafficking and parliamentarians deaths. To prosecute a deputy state deputy of Alagoas who killed his colleague and then became a federal deputy, it was a “soap opera” to have an update. We cannot resume this nonsense in Brazil.

IM – Is the opinion that the Lord will present is for the total rejection or is there something that the Lord could maintain? And the opinion being rejected in the CCJ, ends process or could you still go to the plenary?

Av – Total rejection. With the rejection of the CCJ, she goes to the CCJ file, but may be sent to the plenary upon appeal presented by parliamentarians with due support. We hope this will not happen, because the plenary has also signaled contrary to PEC. You have publicly against PEC more than 50 parliamentarians.

IM – Do you think the climate for approval of this PEC worsened with the manifestations of this weekend?

Av – Surely, because even that inattentive parliamentarian, now he has the absolute awareness that he is a serious PEC and causes damage to Brazil and electoral damage to him, parliamentary, who may decide to vote favorably.

IM – In the opinion of the Lord, why did the House decided to approve a PEC like this?

Av – There is a very articulated, intelligent group who knew what he was doing and who wants to protect himself from investigations that are underway for serious crimes committed by organized crime movement. And there is another very large group that doesn’t know what you vote; which votes according to guidance, request or as a herd. It is the class that is doing these ‘videos’ apologizing to the voters.

IM-Senator Ciro Nogueira (PP-PP) said he will present an amendment to this PEC. Do you know the content of the amendment? Have you ever talked to you about it?

Av – No amendment was filed. Senator Ciro Nogueira referred me to the post he made on a social network talking about a protection of so -called opinion crimes, which is something that already exists in the legislation. And if anything is linked to the parliamentary’s speech, and if this speech is linked to the mandate, there is already protection. So it seems to me that this possible amendment is not very sense that has not been filed so far.

IM – If the content of the amendment is according to what he sent him, would the Lord reject it too?

Av – Yes, for complete uselessness. Because parliamentarians are already protected today on opinion crime. Apparently, it makes no sense, because in the original amendment from 2001, has the signature of Ciro Nogueira, as a deputy, at the time.

IM – Do you believe you will have clash in the CCJ, although you have stated that most are against? Do you believe that some senators will fight for this PEC?

Av -I hope not, but you will have many lines, many speeches, because it is a theme that mobilized Brazilian society, so I imagine that everyone will want to talk. Within this context, there may be some debate. For the questions in fact, for the technical questions of the matter, we are prepared to answer with great tranquility, conviction and conviction. You have to want to get your name so much to vote for such a business.

IM – Your rejection is for unconstitutionality and merit. Why for both things?

Av – The first step is to check whether it is constitutional or not. At this stage, let’s point out that it is unconstitutional. In the next stage, which is the merit, let’s point out that it does not serve Brazil or Brazilians: it only serves a bandit caste, which wants to protect itself from any investigations.

Let us remove the absolutely artificial narratives that there is curtailment to parliamentary activity. This does not subsist, it is not reality. Of course we have an exacerbated antagonism today between the judiciary and the legislature. This serves many electoral interests, but in practice those who want to do real work have absolutely no obstacle, beyond the natural obstacles of politics.

IM – And do you believe the PEC that will be rejected and will die there at the CCJ? Or do you think a senator would have the courage to present an appeal to the plenary, even taking so badly before public opinion?

Av – It’s my expectation to have no resource. But we can never underestimate the creativity of colleagues. So possible is. I don’t think it will happen, but it is possible.

IM – And going to the plenary, do you also believe it would be rejected?

Av – I am fully convinced that the matter would be overthrown.