Senator Alessandro Vieira (MDB-SE), leader trained by RenovaBR and rapporteur of the Shielding PEC (PEC 3\/2021) in the Constitution and Justice Committee (CCJ), stated during an interview with RenovaBR that he will present his opinion against the proposal this Wednesday (24). The matter, approved by the Chamber of Deputies, expands parliamentary immunities and has been the target of criticism for weakening mechanisms of accountability and transparency in politics. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Constitutional Amendment Proposal (PEC) was approved as a matter of urgency by a large majority last Tuesday (16). The text provides that parliamentarians can only be held criminally liable with prior authorization from their peers, extending this authorization to state and district deputies and political party presidents. In practice, the mechanism would revoke the current role of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) in opening criminal proceedings against parliamentarians. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Considered a step backward by critics, the proposed amendment faces resistance in the Senate and is expected to be blocked by the CCJ. During the interview, the senator explains the text's upcoming steps. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Senator, what is PEC 3\/2023 about and what would be the main changes the text would bring if approved? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Currently, parliamentarians have a legal immunity for their opinions, votes, and speeches, which is inherent to their mandate. But the text approved in the Chamber extends this protection to any crime. If a parliamentarian commits homicide, femicide, or another crime, they will have full immunity and will only be prosecuted if their colleagues allow it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, the Constitutional Amendment (PEC) extends these prerogatives to state and district representatives, and even political party presidents. Something similar happened between 1988 and 2001, and the result was disastrous: hundreds of investigation requests were denied. Therefore, the change was revoked at that time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although it passed with a comfortable margin in the Chamber of Deputies, it wasn't well received here in the Senate. I've been appointed as the bill's rapporteur in the CCJ, and the work is expected to be completed this week. <\/p>\n\n\n\n You were appointed as the rapporteur for the Constitutional Amendment Proposal (PEC) in the CCJ (Constitutional Court of Justice), and since then, you have spoken out against the proposal and stated that you will submit a report rejecting it. Once the report is submitted, what are the next steps in the process? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n As rapporteur, I present my opinion, which in this case will be to reject the Constitutional Amendment Proposal (PEC). This report will be voted on by the committee. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A committee member may request a review, but we don't expect that to happen. If the bill is voted on and approved\u2014that is, if the Constitutional Amendment Proposal (PEC) is rejected by the CCJ\u2014the text will be archived by the committee. An appeal to bring it to the plenary is possible, but we also believe it will fail, as there is already a majority opposing it within the committee and a large majority of plenary members. So, we expect this saga to end this week. <\/p>\n\n\n\n What is the process behind the report's decision? Do you seek to hear different positions and analyze both the admissibility and merit of the proposal? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n I always conduct my work in a technical and balanced manner. I don't follow passions, but rather objective criteria regarding what's good for Brazil. This credibility built throughout my term led colleagues to support my nomination for rapporteur. <\/p>\n\n\n\n At this point, we're in a position to produce a technically sound report that can garner the necessary majority vote for its archiving. Talking to colleagues, we're increasingly seeing public expressions of rejection of the Constitutional Amendment Proposal (PEC), and this strengthens our work. <\/p>\n\n\n\n How do you see the challenge and responsibility of this position in the CCJ, given a topic that has been widely debated in recent days? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n I understand that it's part of the job to occasionally deal with highly complex and controversial issues. The key is to be technically prepared to engage in debate. By being adequately prepared for the work, it's possible to form a majority and build consensus. And that's what we did in this case, talking with colleagues and adding technical contributions, bringing together a wealth of knowledge and convictions so we can arrive on voting day with a consistent and comfortable majority. I believe this is the best way to accomplish this mission. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It's always important to have opportunities for dialogue. Before 2018, I had never worked in politics, and my preparation for entering public life involved a lot of training at RenovaBR, especially the ability to engage with different perspectives and build consensus. This learning was well-applied and is now being put into practice in my term.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Senator Alessandro Vieira (MDB-SE), leader formed by RenovaBR and rapporteur of the Shielding PEC (PEC 3\/2021) in the Constitution and Justice Committee (CCJ), stated during an interview given to RenovaBR that he will present his opinion against the proposal this Wednesday (24). The matter, approved by the Chamber of Deputies, expands parliamentary immunities and has been [\u2026]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":6060,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_eb_attr":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[7,1951,6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6057","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-noticias","category-alumni","category-destaques"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.renovabr.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6057","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.renovabr.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.renovabr.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.renovabr.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.renovabr.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6057"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.renovabr.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6057\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.renovabr.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6060"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.renovabr.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6057"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.renovabr.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6057"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.renovabr.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6057"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}