Hundreds of cases of impunity of senators and deputies investigated in crimes that included corruption, murders and drug trafficking shocked public opinion throughout the 1990s.
How the court needed authorization from the House or Senate to prosecute parliamentarians, In practice, they were immune to processes while the term lasted, delaying investigations for years.
The revolt against this situation led the National Congress to approve in December 2001, The Constitution Amendment (EC) 35which ended the requirement of prior authorization to criminally prosecute a parliamentarian.
Now, the House of Representatives tries to resume the protection initially provided for in the 1988 Constitution, through the Proposed Amendment to the Constitution (PEC) 3 of 2021also known as the PEC of Armor and PEC of prerogatives. The measure provides that most legislative houses are required, in a vote with a secret vote, so that parliamentarians respond to legal proceedings.
Journalist Tereza Cruvinel has worked in the political editor of the newspaper O Globo for over 20 years, following the legislative work of the Constitution to the promulgation of Amendment 35.
“Parliamentarians began to emerge with criminal involvement. Often, they belonged to powerful parties, and the judiciary could not get the licenses to process them. When the Supreme asked, it was invariably denied. Almost 300 requests were denied until 2001,” he recalled.
According to the professional, The approval of the amendment that ended the need for congressional authorization for investigations was motivated by the numerous cases of impunity reports by the media. “It was a disapproval of society to that extreme protectionism of parliamentarians, who were practically unreachable by the law. There was a confusion between immunity and impunity,” added the journalist who, between 2007 and 2011, was president of Brazil Communication Company (EBC).
Journalist Tereza Cruvinel accompanied Congress of the Constituent Assembly in 1988, the change that allowed processes against parliamentarians in 2001 MARCELO CASAL Jr./AGENCE BRAZIL
Chainsaw deputy
One of the cases that contributed to change the constitution was that of the “chainsaw deputy”. Elected in 1998, Acre parliamentarian Hildebrando Pascoal was convicted after leaving parliament for drug trafficking and various homicides, including disaffected chainsaw disaffected.
Cruvinel pointed out that even in the most shocking cases, Congress preferred to hunt the mandate than allowing the judiciary to open a criminal action.
“The case of Hildebrando was just the most emblematic case. When his crimes were proven, and the Supreme asked the license, instead of grant, they preferred to hunt him not to precede and preserve that mechanism,” he said.
Federal Deputy Hildebrando Pascoal became known as “Mottail Representative” TJAC/Disclosure
Sérgio Naya and Palace 2
Another case that hurried the approval of EC 35 was the collapse of the Palace 2 building, which killed eight people in Rio de Janeiro in 1998, and belonged to the engineer and federal deputy Sérgio Naya, responsible for the construction of the building.
“The PECs that were being processed in this house had their progress accelerated by popular pressure, entering the discussion agenda of the Constitution and Justice Commission,” he says Senate Proceedings.
Attack in the restaurant
Another case that contributed to the approval of EC 35 was that of Senator Ronaldo Cunha Lima, from Paraíba. When he was governor, he shot his political rival, former governor Tarcísio Burity, in a restaurant in João Pessoa in 1993.
Cunha Lima was arrested, but got habeas corpus. In 1995, he was elected senator and had immunity that would last 8 years. Still in 1995, the Supreme Court licensed to prosecute the parliamentarian, but the Senate only analyzed the case four years later, in 1999, denying the authorization.
Cunha Lima was only sued after amendment 35. However, in October 2007, a few days of being tried at the Supreme Court, The parliamentarian resigned to take the case to the first instance of the judiciary.
Burity’s family reacted with indignation. “He spent 14 years deceiving justice. Now, when he knew he was going to be tried, he resigned to be tried by the Jury Court. It’s a clowning,” At the time, the widow of the politician, Glauce Burity.
Former senator Ronaldo Cunha Lima. Roque Sá/Senate File
1988 constituent
When the 1988 constituent included in the Constitution the requirement of authorization for criminal proceedings against deputies and senators, he had in mind to create a protection of deputies after 21 years of military dictatorship.
Tereza Cruvinel, who also covered the 1988 constituent, pointed out that, at the time, the constituents feared political persecution after redemocratization.
“The constituent, who came to end a dictatorship, intended to protect parliamentarians against any future abuse, a setback, a new dictatorship or half dictatorship. Today’s deputy, on the other hand, is thinking of ensuring a shield against any initiatives of justice, including the crimes involving parliamentary amendments,” he added.
According to experts and organizations that work with the fight against corruption, The current shield PEC may favor corruption in the use of amendments.
Legislative Analyst Orlange Maria Brito wrote an article on the subject and stressed that The protection designed for parliamentarians who left a dictatorship began to be questioned since it was “diverted from their correct use.”
“It allows us to question the necessity and actuality in times when there were no longer the situation of authoritarianism of the historical and political moment in which they were conceived,” he said.
Also according to the expert, “in the face of numerous facts, which occurred at the time, the concern was installed to prevent immunity from degenerating as a mechanism that could cover criminal acts that should not escape the performance of the judiciary.”
Protect Parliament
Defenders of PEC 3 of 2021 state that the proposal aims to protect the exercise of the parliamentary mandate against improper interference of the judiciary and against alleged “political persecution”.
The PEC rapporteur in the House, Deputy Claudio Cajado (PP-BA), rejects the argument that the proposal limit criminal actions against parliamentarians.
“This is not a license for abuse of the exercise of the mandate, it is a protective shield of the defense of the parliamentary, the sovereignty of the vote and, above all, respect for the House of Representatives and the Senate,” he said.
Deputy Nikolas Ferreira (PL-MG) argued that the National Congress would not bar investigations against those who committed crimes.
“Those who commit a crime will pay, wow. It’s simple, we vote, and we show that this house is against criminal,” said Nikolas during the session.
