The decision of Minister Alexandre de Moraes, of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), which annulled the decision of the Chamber of Deputies and determined the immediate loss of the mandate of Carla Zambelli (PL-SP), opened another chapter in the institutional crisis between the Legislative and the Judiciary. This time, the confrontation concerns the question of which power will have the last word in determining the dismissal of parliamentarians.
In his opinion, Alexandre de Moraes affirms that the Federal Constitution gives the judiciary the power to declare the loss of mandate of parliamentarians found guilty of criminal offenses. According to the minister, the Board of Directors of the Chamber should simply “declare the loss of the mandate, that is to say, issue a related administrative act”.
In June this year, House Speaker Hugo Motta (Republicanos-PB) presented a similar view to Moraes, when he said that with the conclusion of Zambelli’s trial, it was not up to him to “put (the impeachment) to a vote.” “We already have the conviction. The court’s decision must be respected,” Motta said at a June 9 event.
The next day, after being the target of pressure from the Bolsonarista base in Congress, Motta reversed course and declared that it was up to the House to decide the issue. “The plenary is the one that has the legitimacy of this Assembly and it decides where this Assembly goes. It is sovereign and is above each of us,” he declared.
The Zambelli case only arrived in plenary six months later, in the early hours of this Thursday (12/11), in an empty room. The vote ended with 227 votes for impeachment, 110 against and 10 abstentions, a result that saved parliamentarian Bolsonaro, because at least 257 votes would be needed to cancel the mandate.
During the vote, Motta even tried to convince the deputies present to postpone the analysis until the next day, citing a low quorum, but the request was ignored and Zambelli was saved.
6 images
Close modal.
1 of 6
Hugo Motta during the vote to revoke the mandates of Glauber Braga and Carla Zambelli
VINÍCIUS SCHMIDT/METRÓPOLES @vinicius.foto2 of 6
Hugo Motta during the vote to revoke the mandates of Glauber Braga and Carla Zambelli
VINÍCIUS SCHMIDT/METRÓPOLES @vinicius.foto3 of 6VINÍCIUS SCHMIDT/METRÓPOLES @vinicius.foto4 of 6
Federal MP Carla Zambelli (PL-SP) testifies to the CCJ, which analyzes the loss of mandate
HUGO BARRETO/METROPOLES @hugobarretophoto5 of 6
Hugo Motta during the vote to revoke the mandates of Glauber Braga and Carla Zambelli
VINÍCIUS SCHMIDT/METRÓPOLES @vinicius.foto6 of 6
Federal MP Carla Zambelli (PL-SP) testifies to the CCJ, which analyzes the loss of mandate
HUGO BARRETO/METROPOLES @hugobarretophoto
The Supreme Court’s reaction came less than 24 hours later. In the decision, Moraes asserts that by voting on impeachment, the Plenary Chamber violated Article 55, III and VI, of the Federal Constitution, which deals with the hypotheses of loss of the parliamentary mandate.
“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.
Moraes’ decision reignited the conflict between the powers after a slight withdrawal from the Supreme Court, as last week the tension was at center over who should decide on the dismissal of STF ministers.
On Wednesday (10/12), after a dialogue with members of the Federal Senate, Minister Gilmar Mendes partially suspended an injunction — published on December 3 — on the application of the impeachment law to members of the Court.
The dean overturned the article of the decision which exclusively assigned to the Prosecutor General’s Office the competence to file complaints for crimes of responsibility against the ministers of the STF.
The history of crises
- The Congress and the STF have found themselves on opposite sides in several situations in recent years.
- Also at the end of 2022 (under the Bolsonaro government), the STF decided that the secret budget was unconstitutional. The position against amendments without traceability was the password allowing the two powers to compete.
- Under the Lula government, Congress and the STF had divergent positions on issues such as the time frame for indigenous lands, the decriminalization of marijuana, abortion, and social security tax relief.
- The Congress decided to develop proposals to limit the duties and powers of the STF, even considering the possibility of dismissal of ministers.
- One of the most recent chapters of attrition was the decision of Minister Gilmar Mendes, of the STF, which limited the right of the Attorney General’s Office (PGR) to present impeachment requests against STF ministers. The fact provoked reactions in Congress. Mendes later reversed part of the decision.
- The case in question currently concerns the decision of the Chamber, in the early hours of November 12, to maintain the mandate of federal deputy Carla Zambelli (PL-SP).
- In May this year, the first college of the STF sentenced the parliamentarian to 10 years in prison for invading the systems of the National Council of Justice (CNJ). The loss of Zambelli’s mandate was also decreed and the Chamber Council officially declared the position vacant, as provided for in the Federal Constitution.
- With the opposing position of the Plenary Chamber, Minister Alexandre de Moraes reaffirmed the loss of mandate and gave Hugo Motta 48 hours to comply with the decision and be sworn in as replacement.
Parliamentarians attack Moraes
For now, President Hugo Motta has not commented on Moraes’ decision. The Bolsonaro bench flooded social networks with accusations against the Minister of the Supreme Court.
The leader of the PL in the House, MP Sóstenes Cavalcante (PL-RJ), called Moraes a “psychopath dictator” after the Zambelli decision.
“The psychopathic dictator who governs the three Powers today has attacked again. When a minister annuls the sovereign decision of the House and overturns the popular vote, it ceases to be Justice and becomes an absolute abuse of power,” Sóstenes wrote.
The MP said there was “institutional usurpation” and that the Supreme Court had ignored Parliament’s deliberation. According to him, Moraes’ determination undermines democracy and ignores the will of the electorate. “Brazil witnessed an act of institutional usurpation: a man attacking Parliament and the will of the people,” he said.
Read also
-
Brazil
Hasselmann mocks Zambelli after Moraes’ mandate decision
-
Brazil
Michelle Bolsonaro speaks out after Moraes’ decision on Zambelli
-
Igor Gadelha
MPs see Motta as dead end after Moraes’ Zambelli decision
-
World
Outlaw, Ramagem criticizes Moraes after Zambelli decision: “King of Brazil”
MP Nikolas Ferreira (PL-MG), one of Moraes’ most vocal critics in Congress, also commented on the decision and claimed that the country was experiencing a “dictatorship.” “And there are people who think that it is still possible to do something against the dictatorship in ‘normality’. Close Congress soon, there is no reason for it to be open,” the parliamentarian wrote on the social network X.
Even former first lady Michelle Bolsonaro (PL-DF), tipped to run for a Senate seat in 2026, used social networks to criticize the STF minister. “It’s… Congress. Unfortunately, it’s sad to see you so weakened and on your knees in the face of so much arbitrariness,” he wrote.
The government base celebrates
Shortly after the House preserved Zambelli’s mandate, the Workers’ Party announced that it would file a mandamus with the STF to suspend the plenary’s decision.
PT House Leader Lindbergh Farias argued that the House should not even vote on impeachment, but simply comply with the Court’s decision.
“The decision of the Supreme Court is clear. In condemning Zambelli, Minister Moraes says, with reference to article 55 of the Constitution, that the council of the House must proceed with the impeachment. Motta has created a problem for himself. How can he not revoke (Zambelli’s mandate) if there is a judicial decision to expel?”, he argued.
After Moraes’ decision, Lindbergh took to social media to celebrate the act. “The minister recognizes that the final sentence of Zambelli to 10 years in prison in a closed initial regime makes it legally impossible to exercise the mandate, imposing an automatic loss on him,” wrote the deputy.
“Moraes restored the authority of the Court and ordered immediate compliance with the final decision, emphasizing that the Plenary Chamber cannot revise, relativize or ignore the automatic effect resulting from a criminal conviction,” Lindbergh said.
Motta has 48 hours to replace Zambelli
In the same decision, Moraes determined that the President of the House, Hugo Motta, will take office as Zambelli’s deputy within a maximum period of 48 hours. He also requested that the chairman of the First Panel, Minister Flávio Dino, organize a virtual session this Friday (12/12), from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., for a referendum on the decision.
Zambelli is being held in a prison in Italy, where she is awaiting extradition proceedings and, as she has already been sentenced twice totaling 15 years and 3 months in prison, she is not eligible to run for office.
In May, the first panel of the STF unanimously convicted Carla Zambelli and hacker Walter Delgatti Neto for intrusion into the systems and falsification of documents of the National Council of Justice (CNJ).
Both were convicted in Criminal Action (PA) 2428 for the crimes of hacking a computer device and making a false statement. The sentence imposed on Zambelli was 10 years in prison under a closed initial regime and a fine of two thousand minimum wages. Delgatti’s sentence was set at eight years and three months in prison, also under an initially closed regime, and a fine of 480 minimum wages.
They will also have to pay compensation of 2 million reais for collective material and moral damages.
Zambelli was also convicted of illegal possession of a weapon and unlawful harassment for chasing, armed, a supporter of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) on the eve of the 2022 second round.
About The Author
