The package approved by the Chamber's Constitutional and Justice Committee restricts the issuance of unilateral decisions by court judges and creates new possibilities for impeachment of magistrates; Understand end-to-end projects
The House's Constitution, Justice and Citizenship Committee (CCJ) approved this Wednesday, the 9th, a set of four measures that would limit the powers of ministers of the Supreme Court (STF), if they are approved by the full House. In addition to making the process leading to the impeachment of magistrates by the Senate more flexible, along with new accountability offenses and new procedures for analyzing impeachment requests.
Criticized by judges, the package changes the constitution, displeases the court and is part of the conflict between judicial and legislative powers.
See what the proposed bill changes look like today and what the law would look like if the proposals are approved.
A limit for monotonic results
The Proposed Amendment of the Constitution (PEC) 8/2021 limits the scope of monopolistic decisions of STF Ministers. According to text approved by the Senate late last year, judges can no longer suspend the validity of laws approved by the Legislature through injunctions.
According to the rule, a majority of the entire chamber of the Court must be formed for a law enacted by Congress to be invalid. Currently, any member of the STF can, unilaterally and immediately, invalidate a provision approved by the Executive or the Legislature, and only then submit the matter for a thorough analysis.
The same PEC prohibits the decision of the Supreme Court Minister against the orders of the Presidents of the Chamber and the Senate.
Judgment study
PEC 24/2024 creates an opportunity for Congress to review court decisions. If approved, STF trials can be suspended with a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House.
As of now, there is no such legal provision, and the move has been criticized by judges as violating the Supreme Court's autonomy.
STF Ministers responsible for new offences
Bill (PL) 658/2022, authored by former Federal Deputy Paulo Martins (PL-PR), creates new hypotheses for the dismissal of STF ministers. The proposal of Martins to run for vice mayor of Curitiba on the ticket of Eduardo Pimentel (PSD) creates new crimes of responsibility, as it is called conduct that leads to the position of magistrates.
To date, five liability offenses have been classified by the law that can lead to the dismissal of STF ministers. According to Federal Law 1,079 of 1950, the judge “cannot in any way, by way of appeal, change the decision or vote already given in a court session”; The minister is also barred from participating in the investigation of “suspects in the case”; “Partisan political activity” is prohibited; Finally, the person holding the position cannot be “generally negligent” in the discharge of their duties or act “in a manner inconsistent with the honor, dignity and decorum” of the role.
In addition to these provisions, ministers are now prohibited from publicly expressing their views on “pending proceedings” and “acts of other powers of the Republic,” according to a proposal to be implemented by the CCJ. “Trespassing” can also be classified as an offense of liability (…) Parliamentary Immunity” and “Expropriation (…) Powers of the Legislative Branch, making general and summary provision for the competence of the National Congress”.
The proposal to categorize violations of “parliamentary misconduct” and “powers of the legislative branch” as impeachable offenses follows criticism from parliamentarians of the STF in similar terms. Federal Deputy Gilson Marquez (Novo-SC) reported the speech and it was approved by a vote of 14 to 36.
New Ritual to Dismiss STF Ministers
Bill 658/2022 also modifies the procedure for dismissing STF ministers, joining another proposal approved this Wednesday by the CCJ, No. 4754/2016, written by Federal Deputy Sóstenes Cavalcante (PL-RJ) and reported by Alfredo Gaspar (União Bras). )
According to the text written by Cavalcante, the President of the Senate, responsible for evaluating impeachment requests from Supreme Court Justices, has a certain period of time to analyze the request, after which the Chamber President, necessarily, must receive it or archive it. Today, there is no established legal deadline for analysis, which in practice sends requests.
Cavalcante's proposal is in line with the plan suggested by Paulo Martins, according to which, if a complaint is rejected by the minister of the Supreme Court, an appeal can be made if signed by a third of the council. The appeal must be voted on in the presence of at least 41 senators, and to be approved, it must be voted by more than half of those present.
Follow 'Estadão' on social media
Source link
