Amendments: ” messages” in decisions and responses maintain tension between Powers
Use of terms such as “estranging”, “objectively”, “balbúrdia” and “money bags” are some examples that friction is far from over
The “messages” passed over the last week in the decisions of the minister of the Supreme Court (STF) Flávio Dino and in the responses and allegations of the Chamber of Deputies on the parliamentary amendments show that the tension between the Powers is maintained and will go through the turn of the year.
The use of terms such as “stranging”, “objectively”, “babble” and “money bags” are some examples that friction is far from over. In the construction of judicial decisions and responses of the parties involved, the words are not only placed, they are thought before forming a final text.
This is another chapter of a year marked by the tension between the Legislative and the Judiciary. Parliamentarians assess that the Supreme Court “invades” prerogatives of Congress, while the Supreme Court argues that it only exercises its role when it is triggered. Last week, a new episode involving the payment of the amendments further intended the conflict between the two Powers.
Arm wrestling
On Monday (12/23), Dino determined the immediate payment suspension of 5,449 nominations of commission amendments, which affects a slice of R$ 4.2 billion of the Union Budget. In addition, he ordered the Federal Police (PF) to open an investigation into the amendments.
The minister used the term “money bags” in the order when commenting on episodes of misuse of public resources. The magistrate cited “suitcases of money being seized in airplanes, safes, lockers or thrown through windows”.
On Thursday (12/26), the mayor, Arthur Lira (PP-AL), even called an extraordinary meeting of the leaders of the House to discuss how the response to the Court would be. The meeting ended up not taking place, because many parliamentarians are traveling, but Lira talked to some on the phone and met with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) before sending the document to the Supreme Court.
When forwarding the response to the Supreme Court in the early hours of Friday (12/27), the Chamber argued that the release of the amendments had the endorsement of the federal government and asked for the release of the resources. In the letter, the deputies claim that “the arguments that the deliberation of the committee amendments is hidden or fanciful do not proceed, since it is in detail documented in the records, with wide publication on the internet”.
Right at lunchtime the same day, Dino kept the blocking of the amendments, arguing that the answers sent do not cover “essential information”.
O magistrado pediu que os deputados prestassem novos esclarecimentos “objetivamente” até as 20h (horário de Brasília) de sexta. No despacho, o ministro do STF elaborou quatro questionamentos, com o intuito de “facilitar as respostas”.
A Câmara respondeu ao novo pedido do STF na sexta (27/12) à noite. O ofício, construído com foco mais político do que técnico, argumentou existir um estranhamento de que apenas a Casa Baixa esteja sendo alvo de questionamentos, “quando a competência para a matéria é do Congresso Nacional”.
No documento, a Câmara defendeu que o Senado adotou rito rigorosamente idêntico ao da Câmara. No entanto, no ofício enviado pelos senadores ao governo, diferentemente do enviado pelos deputados, houve a indicação de que os líderes partidários eram os padrinhos de cada uma das indicações.
Reuters
