It is interesting to see the lavajatistas sectors of the press pressing for the hearing – and, of course!, approval – of André Mendonça for the vacancy opened at the Supreme Court. Thus, there is a circumstantial alliance between the lavajatism, at whose altar Mendonça has already knelt, and the pastor Silas Malafaia and allies, who are not intimidated in claiming the competence to define who can and who cannot speak as an evangelical. The absurdities accumulate. You’ve never seen anything like it. Step by step.
On Monday, Minister Ricardo Lewandowski made an important decision. He denied the granting of an injunction in a writ of mandamus, filed by two senators, which sought to impose on Davi Alcolumbre (DEM-AP), president of the CCJ (Committee on Constitution and Justice) of the Senate, the scheduling of the meeting in Mendonça. In fact, Lewandowski went further: he didn’t even “knew OF the action” — as they say in Legalese, where the verb “know” is an indirect transitive. This means that the minister is saying that it is an invalid instrument to obtain the effect intended by the petitioners: senators Jorge Kajuru (Podemos-GO) and Alessandro Vieira (Cidadania-SE).
In impeccable argumentation, the minister shows that the pair lacks legitimacy to appeal to the Writ of Mandamus, since it is not about protecting the liquid and certain right of the petitioners themselves, as required by the Constitution (Item LXIX of Art. 5) and Law 12.016.
In a relatively long exposition, given the nature of the decision, Lewandowski also demonstrates that there is no Constitutional instrument to impose on the president of the CCJ the holding of the hearing. Otherwise, the Judiciary would be interfering in a specific matter for the Legislative, the so-called “internal corporis” issue.
It is worth clarifying here a stupid thing – one among the infinite – that goes on in social networks: if the STF can determine the opening of a CPI, why can’t it impose the hearing? Simple answer: the first question is regulated in Paragraph 3 of Article 58 of the Charter; the second is not.
That is to say: “The parliamentary inquiry commissions (…) will be created by the Chamber of Deputies and the Federal Senate, jointly or separately, upon request of one third of their members, for the determination of a determined fact and for a fixed period (… )”. Once these conditions are satisfied, the Constitution imposes its installation. But there is nothing about the Sabbath date. In this case, the decision is exclusive to the Legislative Power.
BACK TO THE POLITICAL QUESTION
The pressure on Alcolumbre to mark the date is great and unites, as I have already stated here, sectors linked to laundry and some shrill voices claiming the monopoly of the evangelical voice. I address this point in a specific post. I settle for a bit in Alcolumbre.
The senator tries to impute a practice similar to blackmail. Bolsonaro himself even suggested this in his interventions. The president of the CCJ would have unsatisfied claims and that alone would be “holding” the hearing.
Well, say what? It wasn’t for lack of giving in to, say, “budgetary pressures” that Bolsonaro made enemies, was it? He only remains in the Presidency of the Republic because, in an unprecedented way, the so-called “Secret Budget” guarantees what is left of governability. If someone is looking for something like “blackmail”, it’s good to start looking there.
If Alcolumbre really had the list of demands closed, I think it would have already taken what was supposedly intended.
As there is not, as there is not, possible imposition for the hearing to be held, I understand that the delay is a legitimate part of the political game. Some claim to know Alcolumbre’s secret motivations, although they don’t discriminate against them. It’s enough for me to defend that the hearing is for 2023, what Bolsonaro said on the last 6th. In a meeting with ruralist parliamentarians, the president said the following wonder:
“Whoever is elected president next year, in the first half of 23, nominates two more [ministros] to the Supreme. If it’s aligned with us, 10. That’s four guaranteed inside. In addition to others who already vote… it’s not that they vote with us, they vote with the agendas that have to be voted on by our side. So, let’s have peace of mind on the part of the Judiciary. This is paramount”.
Bolsonaro sees the Supreme Court as a sort of tug-of-war for the interests it defends. It does not think about appointing people who, having experience in the legal area, arrive there to make decisions according to legal norms.
Yes, it is a fact, the Supreme is also subject to political injunctions, and whoever sits in one of his chairs does not fall from heaven. But such shamelessness has never been seen. Imagine if, in the PT years, Lula spoke to a group of union members about “guaranteed ministers”…
“And there weren’t any, Reinaldo?”
I answer like this: on April 4, 2018, the STF denied preventive habeas corpus to the former president by 6 votes to 5, which led Sergio Moro to decree his arrest less than 24 hours later. Of the six votes that allowed Lula’s arrest, five were from PT nominees: Carmen Lúcia, Rosa Weber, Luiz Fux, Edson Fachin and Roberto Barroso. Of the five ministers in favor of habeas corpus, three had been appointed by non-PT presidents: Celso de Mello, Marco Aurélio and Gilmar Mendes.
Everyone knows that I agree with the five ministers who were defeated and that I was in favor of granting habeas corpus because I understand that, in the case of conviction, the Constitution only authorizes the execution of the sentence after it has become final. Therefore, had that been the decision, it would not have been made by rigging, but by application of the constitutional text. The opposite happened. And the non-rigging was demonstrated inside out.
Bolsonaro does not want ministers of the Supreme, but extensions of his will. So much so that, according to his words, Mendonça has already committed to praying in court once a week and also to lunch with the boss—in this case, himself.
Anyone who has proven proof of Alcolumbre’s secret motivations should expose them. It is enough for me that the appointment of a name for the Supreme, under these conditions, does not prosper.
And there is a central issue for this columnist: democracy! Bolsonaro stopped vomiting coup speech on September 9, when he signed the surrender letter. Rounding up, one month only! It still hasn’t made mea-culpa worthy of the name. But come on: I start counting Mendonça’s indication from that day on. To think that the president’s nomination for the court could be voted on, eventually approving it, when the latter threatened the Supreme Court was an indecent thing to do. Alcolumbre did well to solemnly ignore the question. protected democracy.
On the “Controlled Denomination of Origin” to find out whether or not the subject is “terribly evangelical” and who, after all, grants the “DOC” to the candidate for the Supreme Court, I’m writing another post.