Constitutional guarantees should not be treated lightly.
The case of the deputy sentenced to 30 months in prison in the United States for the crime of money laundering once again brings to the fore the issue of the clean file required to launch candidacies for eligible positions. Few Latin American countries have carried out this initiative. One of them is Brazil, which in 2010 put into force the complementary law 135 that makes ineligible citizens who have a final judgment in second instance for crimes against public administration and assets, private assets, the financial system, the capitals etc The law became necessary because, according to legal analysts, there was a conviction in Brazilian society that it was urgent to improve the quality of political representation by closing the way to the candidacies of citizens whose past was revealed as not recommendable to aspire to a mandate.
From then on, a strong controversy arose in Brazil about the constitutionality of said law against the commitment of the political class to preserve guarantees such as the presumption of innocence and the proportionality of the measure, that is, to marry the right of constitutional rank to aspire to elective positions in general or internal party elections.
One of the first cases tried under the clean file law was that of former mayor Paulo Maluf, convicted in the first instance of corruption by a São Paulo court. Based on this, electoral justice prevented Maluf from aspiring to a second term as deputy. After appealing the sentence, Maluf was acquitted and his candidacy was accepted.
But the most resonant case was that of Luiz Inacio Lula daSilva, twice president of Brazil and tried and convicted as part of an open investigation for money laundering known as Lavajato. Later, Lula was released and acquitted of charges by the Federal Supreme Court after an investigation in which Judge Sergio Moro appeared to be concocting cases against Lula in collusion with various prosecutors. From those days, the term lawfare began to spread, which defines the improper use of judicial processes to remove from the scene, mainly, campaign politicians.
The controversy is still open and it is good that it is so.
We welcome the debate because constitutional guarantees should not be handled lightly.
