Supreme Federal Court Chief Justice Dias Toffoli upheld the suspension of the five deputies barred by the Rio de Janeiro State Legislative Assembly from holding office after being arrested as part of Operation Car Wash. Toffoli rejected the Public Prosecutor's Office's appeal against the Court of Justice's decision guaranteeing the exercise of their mandates, but stated that the Supreme Court's case law firmly holds that indefinite precautionary suspensions of popularly mandated holders during ongoing proceedings amount to a form of impeachment. The Supreme Federal Court Chief Justice's criticism of what he considered a impeachment was welcomed by the deputies involved.
In dismissing the MP's requests, the minister highlighted that the cases lack the legal requirements for processing the request in the Supreme Federal Court (STF). The measure affects representatives Chiquinho da Mangueira (PSC), Marcos Abrahão (forward), André Corrêa (DEM), Marcus Vinicius Neskau (PTB), and Luiz Martins (PDT).
The president of the STF recalled that the decision of the Rio de Janeiro court indicated that the impediment to the exercise of a popular mandate, regularly obtained in the 2018 elections, would be unconstitutional. The minister also pointed out that there are several decisions regarding the case, starting with the inauguration of the parliamentarians, whose effectiveness is "sub judice" by action of the Public Ministry itself, in addition to their freedoms, since they were imprisoned and were released by order of the Legislative House.
Understand the case
In compliance with a decision by the STF, the Regional Federal Court of the 2nd Region communicated to Alerj the decree of arrest of the candidates elected in 2018, as well as the prison situation of each of them, who were held in the penitentiary, so that the decision regarding custody would be reserved to the state Legislative Branch.
The Rio de Janeiro State Legislative Assembly (Alerj) decided to release those involved, but imposed the condition that the deputies not take office. However, two members of parliament filed a writ of mandamus against the act that prevented them from taking office.
“I note, as appropriate, that the applicant had alluded to a possible violation of the principle of separation of powers […] However, no such violation was found when the Judiciary Branch acted in examining the strict legality of acts by the other Branches, without interfering with the merits of the decision itself,” considered the president of the STF.
Leave a comment