The House does not respect the STF and preserves the mandate of Carla Zambelli, imprisoned in Italy

In the communication sent to the Board of Directors, the STF expressly determined the immediate loss of mandate, as an automatic effect of the conviction, following the consolidated jurisprudence of the Court since the Daniel Silveira case. Despite this, the full assembly rejected the revocation and produced, in practice, a blatant violation of the court order.

The deposit took place in an empty plenary, after the opinion of the rapporteur Cláudio Cajado (PP-BA) totaled 227 votes, below the constitutional minimum of 257 votes (absolute majority) required for the loss of the mandate due to a political decision of the Chamber.

The coordination that guaranteed a favorable outcome for the parliamentarian included the Centrão parties, which freed their seats to vote as they wished. Among the deputies, the outcome is that the defeat came from the President of the Chamber, Hugo Motta (Republicans), who tried to increase the quorum of the session, but without success.

The revocation not having been formalized, the Council considered the disciplinary process closed, creating an immediate legal impasse: the STF understands that the loss of mandate automatically results from a criminal conviction that has become final, while the Chamber maintains that article 55 of the Constitution imposes final jurisdiction on the plenary – even if the Supreme Court, since the Daniel Silveira case, reiterates that revocation is a necessary effect of the sentence.

This legal tension was evident in the interventions leading up to the outcome. Motta said the House complied with all regulatory requirements and that the plenary vote was inevitable after months of back-and-forth at the CCJ:

— During 62 sessions, all deadlines were exceeded at the CCJ. We decided to take it to the plenary, which is the body that can deliberate.

For Cajado, a defeated opinion, revocation was the only institutional response capable of making the separation of powers compatible with the execution of the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court. The rapporteur stressed that, faced with a 10-year prison sentence in an initially closed regime, Zambelli’s retention in power “would create a legal fiction”: she is imprisoned in Italy, does not attend sessions, does not sit on committees, does not submit proposals and cannot supervise the Executive.

The opinion also mentions that the Chamber, by not acting, could violate the principle of administrative morality and call into question the very nature of the popular mandate, a thesis that echoes the precedents of the STF in the Natan Donadon case (2013) and reinforced in the Daniel Silveira judgment (2022), when the Court declared that it is not up to the legislative power to “review” the sanctions imposed by the judiciary.

The deputy’s defense, carried out by lawyer Fábio Pagnozzi, relied precisely on the point of constitutional friction: according to him, the Chamber would not be obliged to automatically comply with the decision of the STF and should decide politically. During today’s hearing, the lawyer said:

— I heard that not overturning it would be a violation of a court order. That’s true, but what if there was evidence against her. Today, around a hundred deputies respond to files at the STF. If they indict Carla Zambelli, it will set a precedent.

Pagnozzi sought to dismiss the thesis that the execution of the additional sentence would depend solely on the communication from the Supreme Court. However, this argument directly contradicts recent decisions of the Court which determined the loss, by declaration of the Council, of mandate in convictions for crimes against the democratic rule of law.

Zambelli, although he had the right to participate by videoconference, did not take advantage of it. His son, João, told GLOBO that the documentation required for qualification was extensive and had not been collected in time.

The result, followed by the proclamation of archiving, was greeted with joy by the opposition. Deputies sang “Happy Birthday” in honor of Zambelli’s son, who turned 18 on that date. João arrived in Brasilia on Tuesday and participated in conversations to preserve his mother’s mandate.

Now the issue must move to a new legal chapter: PT leader Lindbergh Farias (RJ) announced that he would sue the STF with a writ of mandamus, to force the board to intervene.

The President of the Chamber was widely criticized for not having applied the impeachment directly through the Council – as sectors of the base defended – and having sent the case to the CCJ, a move which lengthened the process, expanded the defense space and shifted the political tension to the collegiate and plenary.

Zambelli has been in prison since July, after being arrested in Rome when her name appeared on Interpol’s red flag. She left Brazil after exhausting her resources in the criminal action investigating the invasion of the CNJ system.

For those who followed the morning at the CCJ, this outcome seemed impossible. At the beginning of Wednesday, União Brasil modified the composition of the members of the collegiate body and annulled the opinion which acquitted Zambelli, of the rapporteur Diego Garcia (Republicanos-PR). Instead, they approved Cajado’s opinion, which was rejected in plenary.

Despite the collegiate maneuver, União Brasil vacated the seat in plenary. More than half of the bench, or exactly 23 deputies, positioned themselves in favor of Zambelli.