Last Thursday in Rio, PTB’s federal deputy Daniel Silvera used a power, pen and official gazette to protect a friend while Zaire Bolsonaro threw a collar shell at the Federal Supreme Court’s plenary.
The trap was visible in the final half-dozen words of the decree pardoning a man sentenced to eight years and nine months in prison for crimes against democratic rule and death threats to STF judges and family members.
The decree suspended prison bans, fines and “penalties for restricting rights.” In reality, it violates the Constitution and the Clean Records Act, giving the criminal deputy a kind of “general amnesty” so that he can run for office in the October election.
Bolsonaro took a studied, cunning move to gain his own candidacy for re-election in response to the conflict with the judiciary. He is concerned about the instability and institutional instability of the electoral process.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court began outlining a way out of the crisis invented by Bolsonaro at the behest of Judge Alexandre de Mores in the convicted deputy case, and Rosa Weber, a reporter on the activities of the three parties (PDT, Pisol and Citizenship). ) Who wants to revoke the decree.
Weber and Morris warned that the final decision would come from the full. Since there is no set date, the deputy will be sentenced to jail, fined and disqualified, all pending proceedings. For now, he will be required to perform multiple procedures, such as wearing an electronic ankle bracelet and reporting to the court whenever questioned.
There is no emergency. The basis for starting the STF clock ticking is to express the sentence or “condemnation verdict”. And then comes the first analysis – the moment when the abolition of sentences takes effect, as given in the decree.
This is because, Morse writes, pardons, grants or pardons apply only after the criminal process is over – “the outcome of the trial” – according to the collection of judgments, or by law, the “broad majority” in the high court.
True, the Supreme Court has reminded that the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) and the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) have come up with an established consensus definition over the last three decades: Is not removed [sentença]In which the practice of public functions or offices is prohibited. “
Thus, the case of a convicted deputy will already be settled in at least one way – he will be disqualified and barred from holding any public office or function after being convicted, even if the Supreme Court considers Bolsonaro’s decree constitutional.
The problem is not the legislature, but the judiciary. Only the House and Senate can withdraw the mandate. However, from the moment the process ends with the sentencing, it can only be decided by the Members of Parliament.
It is hard to imagine that deputies and senators are willing to face voters in a tough battle for re-election to protect a deputy convicted of a crime against the constitution and to threaten to kill judges and their families.
In addition, to qualify him, it would take time for Bolsonaro to vote for a change in the law, as he wanted in the decree. Both in the Clean Record Act, an anti-corruption symbol, and in the Constitution, which requires approval by an absolute majority, in two voting rounds, in the House and in the Senate.
Judgment times are different, more relative than politics. Sometimes, it makes room for the coincidence of the three energy interests. It can also be called ‘path’.