Suspension of actions against branch should not extend to other cases of January 8

The decision of the House of Representatives to hold the Criminal Action in the Federal Supreme Court (STF) against Deputy Delegate Ramagem (PL-RJ) divides opinions from jurists heard by Infomoney. At one point, however, there is convergence that the measure should not alleviate the situation of other suspects of involvement in the scammer acts of 8, such as former President Jair Bolsonaro (PL).

Also read: Eduardo Leite is affiliated this Friday to the PSD of Kassab in act in São Paulo

The rapporteur’s opinion, Deputy Alfredo Gaspar (Union-AL), approved by the Plenary, provides for the suspension of all proceedings in which branch is suspected, as he considers that they were practiced after his diploma as a deputy.

The decision, however, contradicts the Supreme Court’s understanding, which sent a letter to the House informing that the house could not fully lock the criminal action against branch. The suspension would only be valid for those crimes committed after the deputy’s diplomation in December 2022.

Thus, it would be possible to interrupt the analysis of two crimes -qualified damage and deterioration of overturned assets -as they refer to acts allegedly committed on January 8, 2023, after the date of diploma. In addition, there is no legal forecast of sustainment to other defendants, such as Jair Bolsonaro.

According to the constitutionalist and professor at São Paulo University, Pierpaolo Bottini, the suspension should only have an effect on Deputy Ramagem and in relation to the crimes delimited by the STF. He considers correct the STF’s decision to separate the crimes committed before and after the parliamentary diploma.

“In relation to the others involved, it has little legal effect, because the prerogative is personalistic. It only affects parliamentary and only affects the crimes committed while in the exercise of the mandate,” he explained.

For the lawyer and professor of criminal law at FGV Law, Raquel Scalcon, there is also no doubt that the sustainment is only valid for the case of branch. However, she considers that there may be different interpretations about which crimes of the parliamentary immunity protects.

“The criminal action begins before the diploma and extends to after the diploma. What the House is saying is that these acts continued. The Supreme considers that, as they started in 2022, they are not encompassed. This will be the arm wrestling,” says the teacher.

Therefore, she believes that the Supreme may be instigated to overthrow a part of the decision of the House.

For the lawyer specializing in Economic Criminal Law, Carlos Eduardo Delmondi, the rapporteur himself of the criminal proceedings, Deputy Alfredo Gaspar, acknowledged that the House has a different understanding of the guidance contained in the letter sent by the STF.

Delmondi argues that, considering the independence and harmony between the powers, the act of sustainment approved by the Parliament should prevail. “However, as the Supreme Court has already suggested in the atypical guidance sent to the House, it would not surprise the continuity of the criminal action,” he says.