Bill No. 5582/2025, known as PL Antifaction, which is being urgently processed in the Chamber of Deputies, has become the center of an acute institutional clash. In an interview with this column, the Director General of the Federal Police (PF), André Rodrigues, publicly expressed his concern about the proposed changes in the rapporteur’s replacement, Deputy Guilherme Diret (PP-SP), warning of the risk of unconstitutionality and weakening of the company’s investigative capacity.
The main criticism leveled by the police forces relates to provisions that, in the initial version of the report, restricted the actions of the police forces in investigations of criminal organisations. According to Rodriguez, these restrictions would be “unacceptable” and “meaningless at a time when we need to act in an increasingly integrated and robust way.”
The risk of shielding and the Mariel precedent
Rodriguez was emphatic in pointing out the practical consequences of a possible curtailment of the National Front’s independence. He cited the case of Marielle Franco, in Rio de Janeiro, as an example of an investigation that would have been made impossible under the new legislation.
“Under the current wording… we could not, for example, conduct an investigation into the Marielle case in Rio de Janeiro. There was the involvement of leaders from the civil police and the state. This reliance on external factors would make the actions of the national police ineffective,” he said.
The Director-General warned that limiting federal jurisdiction could protect sensitive targets and generate “enormous procedural disruption” in ongoing investigations, as changes to the criminal process directly impact ongoing cases.
The primary concern is that the proposal weakens the fight against “organized crime upstairs,” where the National Front has focused its efforts on arresting leaders and stifling the economic power of the factions.
Terrorism
Another point of difference is the attempt to equate organized crime with terrorism. For the National Front, the proposal is “wrong” and could lead to “harmful consequences.”
Rodriguez argues that organized crime and terrorism have a different legal nature, and that conceptual confusion can generate legal and economic uncertainty.
He cited, for example, the conviction of a criminal group that attempted to carry out a coup.
If the new law is actually in effect, according to Rodriguez, the comparison with terrorists could lead to international sanctions being imposed on banks for holding the accounts of these individuals and obstructing commercial transactions in the country, which would be “harmful to the economy and national sovereignty.”
Dialogue and searching for effective text
Despite the criticism, the Director General confirmed that he is continuing dialogue with Congress and the Ministry of Justice.
He said he spoke with the president of the chamber, Hugo Motta, and with the rapporteur to make clear that the National Front cannot accept legislation that suppresses its constitutional powers.
Rodriguez believes that Brazil needs to strengthen the institutions of the criminal justice system, not restrict them. He cited the Integrated Anti-Organized Crime Forces, coordinated by police forces in all states, as an example of successful cooperation between security forces.
According to him, any restrictions on PF would jeopardize this integration model. “FICCOs are the clearest example of the importance of integration. Any restrictions on the Popular Front would create difficulties for the progress of this cooperation,” he stressed.
The goal of the National Front, according to Rodriguez, is to ensure that the final text of the constitutional law is a powerful and constitutional instrument, capable of improving the fight against organized crime without compromising federal autonomy.
About The Author
