“If the STF insists, the Senate will have to pass a new impeachment law”, declares the rapporteur

• Data sheet: 8% think Bolsonaro should support Flávio, 22% Michelle and 20% Tarcísio
• Experts assess: The accumulation of crises reveals power struggles and institutional disarray

Senators viewed Gilmar’s decision as interference in Congress. Did the STF make a mistake?

I do not believe it would be necessary to issue an injunction. They could have waited for college. There was precipitation. Congress was already developing a bill coordinated by a former minister of the Supreme Court himself, Ricardo Lewandowski, now Minister of Justice. It is a text which provides a contemporary vision of impeachment, which must be exceptional, and not an instrument of momentary voting or political discontent.

Will this new impeachment law be passed this year?

If the STF continues the trial next week, the Senate will have no choice but to pass this new law. With this, the legislation discussed in the STF (from 1950) loses its objective. It would be prudent for someone to request a review or for President (Edson) Fachin (of the STF) to suspend judgment, to allow us to vote on the project in the first half of next year in a less rushed manner. So as not to appear as a response to the injunction. Now, if they insist and the Speaker of the House (Davi Alcolumbre) says “let’s vote”, I have the report ready and we will vote without problem.

Have you been approached by Gilmar Mendes or any other minister of the Supreme Court?

Anytime. I only spoke with former STF Minister (Ricardo) Lewandowski during the public hearing of the CCJ (Constitution and Justice Commission), when he recounted how the text was constructed.

Is there a greater chance that impeachment demands will move forward in the next legislature, with the possible growth of opposition in the Senate?

We cannot make a law by wondering whether there will be more parliamentarians from the right or the left. Congress is already deposed in elections at the end of each term. If the voter is not satisfied, he changes. We must, at this time, instead of increasing confusion, maintain institutional accountability. Each Power must look at the other while maintaining distance, independence, but responsibility.

Does the crisis opened by Gilmar’s decision contaminate Messias’ hearing in the Senate?

I’m not saying it contaminates, but it doesn’t help. In recent days, it seems that some are seeking to create a perfect storm to disrupt a debate that should be calm. But as I said, we have already “put the nail in the grenade”. We will now have time to build dialogue.

Do you maintain the assessment that the Messiah does not yet have 41 votes to be approved? Is there a real risk of defeat?

He has improved a lot, progressed well. I don’t have any figures yet, but there has been progress. He fulfills his role, dispels doubts and discusses with opposition senators.

Is the irritation in the House due to the non-appointment of Senator Rodrigo Pacheco (PSD-MG) to the STF the biggest obstacle?

The biggest obstacle is the political moment. There is no rejection of his name. The Speaker of the House decides the agenda, but is unable to vote this year.

Did the government make a mistake in appointing Messias without first informing Alcolumbre?

Yes. President Lula fulfilled his constitutional role. But in the political times we live in, we had to be a little more careful. Because it is also the duty of the Senate to analyze the candidacy.

Is Alcolumbre exercising the prerogatives of the Senate or is he putting pressure on the government?

President Davi is a defender of democracy and institutions. The government has become viable and President Lula is on track to be re-elected, also thanks to the actions of former presidents Pacheco and Alcolumbre, who provided assistance on important issues and put an end to possible abuses.

Why all this friction between the government and the Senate?