Chamber cannot accept TSE decision to impeach Dallagnol, says jurist Modesto Carvalhosa

The jurist Modesto Carvalhosa said this Tuesday (30th), during a meeting to discuss the regularity of electoral justice decisions, in the Financial Inspection and Control Commission of the Chamber, that the law cannot be used to persecute people or institutions.

The public hearing was requested by Deputy Kim Kataguiri (União-SP), to hear the opinion of renowned names in Brazilian law on the recent decision of the Superior Electoral Court (TSE), which ordered the impeachment of Deputy Deltan Dallagnol (Podemos- PR), for non-compliance with the Clean Record Law.

The electoral justice considered that the former attorney would have asked for dismissal from the position in order not to respond to disciplinary administrative processes, which would prevent the candidacy.

For the jurist, the TSE’s decision to impeach deputy Deltan Dallagnol destroyed the principle of the presumption of innocence, by enacting a new rule of ineligibility.

Carvalhosa stated that the Chamber of Deputies cannot accept the TSE’s decision, and suggested that the House propose a Draft Legislative Decree to define the limits of electoral justice decisions. Another suggestion by the jurist is that the Chamber file a lawsuit with the Federal Supreme Court to clarify the competences of the TSE.

For Carvalhosa, the decision of the Superior Electoral Court goes beyond constitutional limits, since the TSE was based on a hypothesis when determining the impeachment of the deputy assuming that the parliamentarian would have asked for the dismissal of the position of attorney to avoid a possible disciplinary administrative process.

For lawyer Leandro Souza Rosa, who defends Deputy Deltan in the case, the issue is very serious. According to him, the law is clear when it determines that ineligibility is linked to the existence of a Disciplinary Administrative Process.

Leandro Rosa also stated that the Regional Court of Paraná did not take into account the hypothesis of fraud in the law when enacting the parliamentarian.