Thursday , April 15 2021

Parliament should vote on the PAC on Friday to change the rules about parliamentary stability.



In practice, the PAC may be challenging in some cases to arrest members of parliament, which is why they have been called critics of the text, the “PAC of B immunity.”

The parties opposed the measures approved on Thursday, a so-called “barrier cut”, a strategy that uses requirements and other mechanisms to delay or delay voting in the boycott. Privately, several delegates said there was no consensus in the chamber and that, had it been voted on Thursday night, the PAC would have been rejected.

Because it is a change in the constitution, two voting periods are required in the chamber as well as in the Senate. The proposal will be approved if it has the support of at least a fifth of the parliamentary votes (308 deputies and 49 senators).

Among other points, the PAC establishes that Parliament

  • He can no longer be removed from office by a court order.
  • He may be arrested in Feligant delicto for a notorious crime, but must remain in the custody of the chamber (in the case of a deputy) or fully imprisoned until the Senate (if he is a senator).
  • Can’t be more civil or criminally responsible.
  • Precautionary measures that affect the Parliament’s mandate will be effective only after being certified by the Federal Federal Court (STF) Planetary.

During the session, Deputy Hugo Mota (Republican-PB), the leader of a block composed of 11 parties, accused the schedule when he asked for a text to vote on Friday.

“There are some leaders who will try to vote on the Tonight Show story, because the full barrier cut has already been won, but we want time to understand why we propose that we can resume voting tomorrow morning. “, He said.

Deputies continue their efforts to reduce the vote of the MPs
Deputies continue their efforts to reduce the vote of the MPs

Deputies continue their efforts to reduce the vote of the MPs

The project is a response to the apparent arrest of Deputy Daniel Salviera (PSL-RG), cited by the Federal Supreme Court (STF) after a video released by Parliament in which he apologized to A-5. , Defended the toughest act of military dictatorship, and the removal of STF ministers. Both directions are unconstitutional.

For the STF, Salveira added to parliamentary favor that it could freely express an opinion.

The PAC, which is moving rapidly in the chamber, was added to the Friday agenda after completing Wednesday (24) days, before filing, without any commission, which is unusual. General Chat Chat Lounge The pace of the procedure has drawn criticism from some parties, such as PSOL and Novo.

To enable the counting of votes, the reporter, Congresswoman Margaret Coyle (PP-PI), removed some of the contradictory points contained in the original text of the proposal.

by what the PAC says:

As it is today: Parliamentarians are immovable to Parliament and can only be arrested under the Unlawful Crime Act. The current wording, however, does not clarify whether it is merely an irrational offense provided for in the Constitution or whether those provided for in the Constitution are also appropriate.

Here’s how it looks: Parliament can only be arrested on charges of non-bailable crimes in law and in the constitution, including racism, torture, illegal drug trafficking, terrorism, horrific crimes and armed groups, civil or military action, orders against the Constitution. And the Democratic State.

In the opinion of some MPs, the PAC is set to fall apart, for example, by laws that do not explicitly address non-criminal offenses such as the National Security Law, based on Solira’s arrest. According to Margaret, all of the laws in “PAC” are made.

  • Ritual in case of arrest in acting

As it is today: The chamber (in the case of a deputy) or the Senate (if he is a senator) must submit the report for analysis within 24 hours of the arrest of the flagrante delicto. The full court may reject the prison or retain it with a full majority judgment (i.e. 257 deputies or 41 senators).

Here’s how it looks: The arrested parliament chamber remains in custody for itself or the Senate until the House decides. If the House decides to imprison, the arrested Parliament will be subject to a provision of custody by a competent court. The text says that the judge should give the prisoner rest, temporary freedom. He will only be in custody if there is a request to solicit the detention or precautionary measures indicated by the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

As it is today: Precautionary measures, such as removal from office or restriction to specific locations, may decide a competent court.

Here’s how it looks: Any decision that affects the Parliament’s mandate will be effective only after the confirmation of the STF meeting. The PEC temporarily prohibits parliament from being removed from office by a court decision.

As it is today: The judge in charge of the case can determine to target and apprehend the parliamentarians.

Here’s how it looks: Only the STF can target and apprehend a deputy or senator when they are carried out at the canal or Senate boundaries. In this case, compliance with the measure must be monitored by the chamber or the Senate legislative police.

If this is the case elsewhere, the search and seizure may be determined by another court, but the seized product will be analyzed only after permission from the STF Plinyri, guilty of any misuse of authority.

In the reporter’s review, this approval does not “shield” the members of parliament, but prevents the evidence against him from being rejected by a first-class court if he finds a criminal while using his confession. Large.

As it is today: The current focus of the STF, in accordance with the decision of 2018, determines that the privileged forum is correct only for offenses committed in the market and related to parliamentary activity. That is, deputies and senators have no forum for common offenses or have been committed before the mines and respond to this process in low-key courts.

Here’s how it looks: The law that limits the forum is upheld and is clearly contained in the constitution.

The immune PEC reporter worms things that change the Clean Record Law
The immune PEC reporter kicks off the item that replaces the clean record law.

The immune PEC reporter kicks off the item that replaces the clean record law.

Find out what the editors agreed to change the original text:

  • Scope of parliamentary stability

Under the current rules, there are parliamentary, civil, and criminal exceptions for the words and votes of the deputies and senators. The principle of parliamentary stability is to give Parliament a parliamentary guarantee so that it does not mix with ideology and ideas.

Margaret Coyle, presenting for the reception of the contract, insisted, however, that the change in the scope of Article 53 be the same. That is, the removal is the part that says Parliament can only respond to its statements in the disciplinary process in the chamber or the Senate’s moral council.

Return the reporter to the section that deals with the failure to provide in clear record law. The proposal was initially provided that the approval would be effective only if the Rule of Judgment Judgment were to take place in practice, meaning that disqualification would occur only after an appeal.

With the change, the current rule rules: Anyone who is convicted of a college body decision is disqualified, though there is still a possibility of appeal.

The PAC’s preliminary text states that the rules adopted for deputies and senators would also apply to state officials, but the proposal was deleted.

At present, it is absent among the parliamentarians that, due to the principle of direction, the powers of the federal parliamentarians are transferred to the representatives of the states.

The order in which the STF’s ability to judge appeals in criminal proceedings was initiated by the STF itself or in the superior courts. In the ST case, the same section was provided, which was handled the same, but in the case of the criminal prosecution of the ST itself, both in the regional federal courts and the state courts of justice.

Also missing was the DSTF’s need to allow search and seizure in the House of Parliament – the approved text only allows for action within Congress.


Source link