The vote on the bill (PL) for the new impeachment law was postponed until next year after an agreement between the senators of the Senate’s Constitution and Justice Committee (CCJ). The rapporteur of PL 1,388 of 2023, senator Weverton Rocha, asked for more time to listen to interested parties and present the opinion.
“First, we move away from this minor discussion of making the law to discuss the recently issued injunction. It is not the objective of the law, much less its spirit. And we will all be more mature and convinced”, maintained the parliamentarian.
The project was scheduled for this Wednesday (10) in the context of friction between the Senate and the Federal Supreme Court (STF) after STF minister Gilmar Mendes decided that only the Attorney General of the Republic could denounce ministers of the Court for crimes of responsibility.
The decision caused a strong reaction from the Senate, with criticism from the president of the House, senator Davi Alcolumbre (União-AP).
Brasília (DF) 03/082024 – Senator Weverton Rocha asked for more time to listen to interested parties and present his opinion on the PL. Archive photo: Lula Marques/ Agência Brasil – Lula Marques/ Agência Brasil
Weverton Rocha, the project’s rapporteur, said that the suggestion to postpone the vote until after the parliamentary recess came from the author of the law, senator Rodrigo Pacheco (PSD-MG).
“Because it won’t simply be the accelerator, the steamroller that will solve it, because this law is not for me, it is not for him nor for you: it is a State law, for the future. So, we need to have responsibility in the conduct of this law”, he added.
According to Gilmar Mendes, the 1950 Impeachment Law is outdated in light of the 1988 constitutional text. recommended that Congress vote on an update to impeachment rules in Brazil.
Opposition senator Eduardo Girão (Novo-CE) agreed with the suggestion to postpone the vote so that, according to him, it does not appear to be a response to Gilmar Mendes’ decision.
“[Votar esse projeto agora] It would be playing into their game, if we did this reading, this voting, let’s put it that way, in a row”, he said, adding that “it’s not by giving back to anyone that we’re going to do this kind of thing. It is not in revenge, it is not in revenge; It’s about analyzing calmly.”
Bias context
Minister Gilmar Mendes highlighted the “context of polarization”. Photo: Antônio Augusto/STF
Minister Gilmar Mendes’ decision occurred in the context of pressure from opposition senators allied with former president Jair Bolsonaro to vote on the impeachment of minister Alexandre de Moraes, who sentenced the former president to 27 years in prison for attempted coup d’état, among other crimes.
Politicians allied with the former president openly maintain that they intend to elect a majority in the Senate in 2026 to change the STF ministers. When commenting on the decision that annulled the old Impeachment Law, Gilmar Mendes highlighted the “context of polarization”.
“It is enough to see that the impeachment process of the President of the Republic goes through two-thirds judgments in the Chamber and the Senate. In the current model, you could remove a minister from the Supreme Court with a simple absolute majority. This seems to be extravagant, especially in this context of polarization. But it is possible, and I think it is recommended that a new impeachment law be voted on”, said Mendes during a forum on the Jota website, last week.
PL Impeachment
THE project under discussion at CCJauthored by Senator Rodrigo Pacheco, defines the crimes of responsibility, subject to the opening of impeachment proceedings, for the President of the Republic, ministers of State, ministers of the STF, commanders of the Armed Forces, members of the Public Ministry, governors, among other authorities.
The text allows ordinary citizens and political parties to submit reports of crimes of responsibility. The decision whether or not to open the process would be up to, as it is today, the president of the Legislative House responsible for judging the denounced authority. In the case of STF ministers, it would be the Senate.
Senator Pacheco’s text, in turn, allows appeals to the presidents’ decision to be presented to the Board of Directors, the Senate or the Chamber, by signature of 1/3 of the parliamentarians of the respective House, or by leaders of benches that represent this 1/3.
Rapporteur Weverton Rocha has not yet presented his opinion on the topic, which should change Senator Pacheco’s original proposal. On the other hand, the senator informed that he has already sent a “preliminary version” for colleagues to make suggestions.
