Federal deputy Carla Zambelli (PL-SP) officially communicated, this Sunday (14/12), her resignation from her parliamentary mandate to the General Secretariat of the Council of the Chamber of Deputies. The information was confirmed by a note published by the Chamber itself.
With the formalization of the resignation, the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Hugo Motta (Republicanos-PB) ordered the call of the replacement Adilson Barroso (PL-SP), who must take office to fill the position left vacant by Zambelli, as provided for in the internal regulations and electoral legislation.
Last Thursday (11/12), Minister Alexandre de Moraes, of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), annulled the decision of the Chamber of Deputies and ordered the immediate loss of the mandate of MP Carla Zambelli (PL-SP). During the plenary vote, 227 parliamentarians voted in favor of impeachment, 110 against and 10 abstained. The result having failed to reach the necessary 257 votes, the performance ended up being archived. The Minister’s decision, however, changed the result by invalidating the understanding of the House.
Moraes considered that, as provided for in the Federal Constitution, it is the Judicial Power which determines the loss of the mandate of the parliamentarian convicted criminally with final judgment, “and it is up to the Council of the Chamber of Deputies, under the terms of §3 of article 55 of the Federal Constitution, to DECLARE THE LOSS OF THE MANDATE, that is to say to issue a related administrative act”, he underlined in the decision.
Carla Zambelli was sentenced by the First College of the STF to 10 years in prison for having participated, with a hacker, in the invasion of the systems of the National Council of Justice (CNJ). She is stuck in Italy after fleeing Brazil. As a prisoner, the parliamentarian cannot vote or exercise her mandate, which, until then, was maintained by decision of the House.
For Moraes, the deliberation of the plenary of the Chamber, which rejected the loss of Zambelli’s parliamentary mandate, “took place in flagrant violation of Article 55, III and VI, of the Federal Constitution.”
“It is a void act, due to obvious unconstitutionality, demonstrating both a lack of respect for the principles of legality, morality and impersonality, as well as a flagrant deviation from the goal,” he considered.
About The Author
