Board of Directors of the Chamber confirms the impeachment of Deltan Dallagnol

The Board of Directors of the Chamber of Deputies confirmed, this Tuesday (6), the impeachment of deputy Deltan Dallagnol (Podemos-PR), determined by the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) in May. The decision was taken at a closed Bureau meeting and has not yet been announced in plenary.

The document declaring Dallagnol’s loss of mandate, Board Act 72, of June 6, 2023, was signed by the mayor, Arthur Lira, and by the other members of the collegiate, deputies Marcos Pereira, Sóstenes Cavalcante, Luciano Bivar, Maria do Rosário, Júlio César and Beto Pereira.

By means of a note, the Board informed that “it is not for the Chamber, or any of its bodies, to discuss the merits of the decision of the Electoral Court. This is not a hypothesis in which the Chamber is canceling a parliamentary mandate, but exclusively declaring the loss of mandate, as already decided by the Electoral Justice“. Check out the full note at the end of the article.

Previously, the Chamber’s Internal Affairs was notified of the TSE’s decision and set a deadline for the deputy to present a defense, in writing. But the report did not consider its content, and only confirmed the understanding of the Electoral Court, and the process went to the Board of Directors, which now also confirmed the understanding of the TSE.

With the decision of the Board of the Chamber to confirm the impeachment of mandate, the political future of Deltan Dallagnol is in the hands of the Federal Supreme Court (STF). The defense has already appealed to the Supreme Court.

In the request presented to the Supreme Court, Dallagnol’s defense claimed that he is at risk of losing his mandate due to a questionable decision. And he asks that the mandate be maintained until the STF decides on the case. The process was distributed by lot, and the rapporteur chosen was Minister Dias Toffoli.

TSE

By seven votes to zero, the ministers of the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) considered that the former coordinator of Lava Jato would have failed to comply with the Clean Record Law. The understanding of the ministers was that Dallagnol asked for dismissal from the position of attorney to avoid possible Disciplinary Administrative Proceedings (PADs).

In the decision that annulled the candidacy registration, and which implies the loss of the parliamentary mandate, the rapporteur, minister Benedito Gonçalves, considered the existence of elements that, according to him, revealed that Dallagnol left his career “with the purpose of frustrating the incidence of ineligibility”.

Still according to the minister, there are understandings both in the STF and in the TSE in the sense that “the practice of an illegal act assumes the character of fraud to the law”. And that “whoever allegedly resigns from a position to, in a disguised way, circumvent the prohibition established by law, incurs in fraud of the law”.

Deltan Dallagnol was elected federal deputy in 2022 with more than 345,000 votes, the highest voted parliamentarian in Paraná, with the second highest vote in the history of the state.

Jurists and demonstrations of support

Upon being informed of the TSE’s decision to revoke his mandate, Deltan Dallagnol said that “they created an imaginary ineligibility to revoke me”, and said he was persecuted for having dared to fight corruption in Brazil.

Dallagnol received the support of several right-wing parliamentarians, who criticized the Electoral Court’s understanding, since there was no case against him.

Jurists such as Ives Gandra Martins and Modesto Carvalhosa were also surprised by the understanding of the Superior Electoral Court and stated that Dallagnol’s exoneration did not violate the legislation in force, as alleged by the ministers.

Sectors of civil society also demonstrated in favor of Dallagnol, and promoted public events in several Brazilian cities to support the deputy, as happened in Curitiba, last Sunday, where thousands of demonstrators gathered in Boca Maldita, in the center of the capital of Paraná.

Acts were also held in the main Brazilian capitals and cities in the interior of São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais and Santa Catarina.

Note from the Board of the Chamber on the impeachment of Dallagnol

“EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Federal Constitution provides, in its art. 55, two rites for cases of loss of parliamentary mandate.

In the first rite, applicable to cases of breach of decorum, final criminal conviction and violations of constitutional prohibitions (art. 55, items I, II and VI), it is incumbent upon the Chamber of Deputies to assess the merits and decide, by majority of the Plenary, on the loss of the mandate of the Deputy or the Deputy. (§ 6 of the same article).

In the event of decree of loss of mandate by the Electoral Justice (art. 55, item V), there is no decision on the merits or judgment by the Plenary of the House. The competence of the Chamber of Deputies, exercised by the Board of Directors under the terms of § 3 of art. 55 of the Federal Constitution, is to declare the loss of mandate. This is the case of Deputy Deltan Dallagnol.

In these hypotheses, the Chamber of Deputies follows the Board Act No. 37, of 2009, which specifies the rite that guarantees to know the decree of the Electoral Justice, evaluate the existence and enforceability of a judicial decision, listen to the Corregidor of the House and instruct the Board Director to declare the loss in constitutional terms.

LEGAL FUNDAMENTALS

The Federal Constitution provides, in its art. 55, the hypotheses in which the Deputy will lose his mandate. In the same article, two distinct rites are defined for that loss to occur.

In the case of Parliamentarians who commit the offenses listed in items I, II and VI (infringement of the prohibitions established in art. 54, breach of parliamentary decorum or criminal conviction that has become final), the loss of mandate will be decided by the Plenary of the Chamber of Deputies , by an absolute majority. It is a political decision, in which the Plenary, in a sovereign manner, decides whether or not to lose the mandate, according to its analysis of the merits of the matter.

In the other hypotheses of loss of mandate, listed in items III to V of the same article – included, therefore, the case of loss of mandate decreed by the Electoral Justice – item V), it is incumbent upon the Board of the Chamber of Deputies, under the terms of § 3 of art. 55, just declare such loss, after only formal analysis of the decision of the Electoral Justice. In this case, there is no need to speak of a decision by the Chamber of Deputies, but only a declaration of loss of mandate by the Bureau.

It is reiterated that it is not up to the Chamber, or any of its bodies, to discuss the merits of the decision of the Electoral Court. This is not a case in which the Chamber is canceling a parliamentary mandate, but exclusively declaring the loss of mandate, as already decided by the Electoral Justice.

Within the scope of the Chamber of Deputies, the procedure defined in the Act of the Board no. 37/2009. In this case, the communication from the Electoral Justice is sent to the House Internal Affairs (art. 1), which will send a copy to the Deputy to which it refers, and will set a deadline for its manifestation (art. 3).

Once the defense has been presented, the Corregidor will prepare an opinion, which will be forwarded to the Board of Directors so that, if applicable, it declares the loss of mandate.

It is reinforced that, according to art. 5 of the aforementioned Act of the Board, in the cases of loss of mandate provided for in items IV and V of art. 55 of the Federal Constitution, the analysis, within the scope of the Chamber of Deputies, will be restricted to the formal aspects of the judicial decision”.