João Paulo Cunha sees shallow relationship between Congress and STF – 12/20/2023 – Power

18 years ago, PT member João Paulo Cunha, 65, was struck down by the monthly allowance scandal when his political career was rising like a rocket.

Fresh from the presidency of the Chamber, he was tipped to lead political coordination in the first Lula (PT) government and was rehearsing to run for the Government of São Paulo in 2006.

Sentenced to 6 years and 4 months for passive corruption and embezzlement, he spent a year in prison in Papuda in Brasília from 2014 to 2015, until his sentence was pardoned by then president Dilma Rousseff in 2016.

While still in prison, he began studying law at the IDP (Brazilian Institute of Public Law). Its master’s committee included Minister Gilmar Mendes (STF), a partner at the institution, and Paulo Gonet, the new Attorney General of the Republic.

The topic he chose today is on the political agenda: the power that small parties have to block laws approved by Congress by filing Direct Unconstitutionality Actions (ADIs) with the Supreme Court. He agrees with the defense made by the President of the Chamber, Arthur Lira (PP-AL), of creating limits for this type of practice.

Cunha currently dedicates himself to law, with offices in Brasília and São Paulo. He moved away from mandates, but not from politics. He remains a member of the PT and is integrated into the party and government.

With the experience of having worked in the Legislature and now in the Judiciary, he says that the relationship between the two Powers has worsened a lot since he commanded the Chamber, in the 2003-04 biennium. “It became more tense and more shallow,” he says, in a rare interview since leaving prison.

Regarding the monthly allowance, he says it was a cruel and unfair process, but that it is in the past. “I’m over it.”

Why the interest in ADIs?
In the presentation of my dissertation I say that it is an empirical experience of someone who lived in Congress for 20 years and was able to follow both sides. At the stage when a party is in opposition, it uses more than when it is the situation. It’s visible. And perhaps it is not so democratic to allow a party represented by just one parliamentarian to question a matter voted on by 500 deputies or 70 senators, which went through committees, with the right to present amendments, substitutes, opposing opinions, oral arguments.

Arthur Lira wants to restrict this possibility. What is your assessment?
President Lira is right, but his reason only goes so far. The political party with a seat in Congress, which participates in the entire rite, presenting an action, may not be democratic. On the other hand, national entities that did not participate in the legislative process must have guaranteed rights, and this needs to be extended. The dignity of legislation must be preserved, because that is the nest, the focus of democracy.

Actions in the STF presented by small parties brought benefits in the case of the pandemic, for example. Wouldn’t restricting limit this aspect?
This question leads to a discussion about the PEC approved in the Senate, which has a correct and a wrong part. The correct thing to do is to demand that matters voted on in Congress and that reach the Supreme Court cannot be decided by a minister, suspending their effectiveness. The wrong one concerns Executive matters, by decree or provisional measure. They can and should be questioned, including allowing monocratic decisions. If it went through Congress, it did not have the urgency required for the Supreme Court’s decision. In the case of the pandemic, if the Bolsonaro government’s measures had been allowed to prosper, more Brazilians would have died.

Mr. He was a deputy and is now a lawyer, he knows the Legislature and Judiciary well. How do you evaluate the relationship between these Powers currently?
There is a lot of reason and a lot of crying. Sometimes a Power has advanced the line between harmony and independence a little. A large part comes from our own interpretation. In my dissertation, I call this malicious judicialization. A party arrives in Congress and criticizes it. But he turns his back, presents a lawsuit, and takes it to court himself.

Of course, it is unreasonable for ministers to make too many statements about a certain process that is still in progress. There is a thesis of self-restraint that is talked about a lot in the Judiciary, but which should also be taken to the Legislative and Executive. I was president of the Chamber and we carried out constitutional amendment 45 [reforma do Judiciário]. The CNJ was created, a binding summary. There was harmony there and everyone walked within their own lines.

In these 20 years, between your presidency of the Chamber and now, Mr. Would you say that the relationship between the Legislature and the Judiciary has become more tense?
It became more tense. And I think it’s shallower. The current moment of great polarization, even calcifying positions and waterproofing bubbles, with the advent of social networks, has brought a new phenomenon, which is the difficulty of maintaining rationality. The environment got much worse. There is a positive aspect: that aura that the Supreme Court is a house that only deals with technical issues is increasingly distant. The Supreme Court has a political behavior. It becomes more and more evident.

In Congress, there is a lot of complaint about judicial activism. Do you agree?
There is judicial activism and it goes down, from the higher courts to the bottom. In some cases, exaggeratedly so. We always need to evaluate judicial activism in each case, but what actually exists is visible.

How do you compare the power that the Legislature has today with that when Mr. Was he president?
The Legislature is characteristic of each circumstance. We had Ulysses Guimarães, president in a very peculiar moment. Then Ibsen Pinheiro led Collor’s impeachment. There are some standout moments. There is, in fact, greater empowerment of the Legislature, particularly in relation to amendments. This will lead to a problem in the medium term. You cannot empower a party without having any burden.

Now there is a discussion about the calendar of amendments to be paid. But if the revenue is insufficient to meet the Executive’s obligations, will it fail to pay for the amendments? It cannot. This is a burden that the Legislature must also take. As a lot of funds are dispersed, with 584 congressmen managing R$50 billion, several structuring projects will be secondary. The amendment is very important, it reaches the base, but it had to be within a larger context.

In his time there was no center. How do you see the power that this block exercise?
The center didn’t have that name, but it always existed. And there is the extreme right, which is strong today and didn’t exist before. The center today even plays the role of reducing the weight that this extreme right has. There are a lot of good people in the center. Putting everything in one basket and beating it is wrong. There is a civilized sector, within the institutionality, that accepts and greatly values ​​the rite.

How do you evaluate the government’s political coordination?
Everything she committed to delivering to the president and society this year was achieved. There is a problem that we would need to study in a more vertical way. I cannot understand that, after 11 months of government, having presented to society and implemented a series of programs that had been closed, the evaluation has not improved much. This intrigues me.

What could have happened?
There is a lot of reflection of polarization, and this leads to stagnation, one block on one side, another block on the other. It’s not Lula’s fault, it’s not the political articulation, I think there’s some deeper reason. We failed to understand the moment in which we were ascending in this third term. When President Lula won in 2003, along with him came a great mobilization of society, with many ideas that were, over the eight years in office, implemented. In this third term, we don’t have that. There is no mobilization and no new ideas, so much so that we spent this year going over ideas from previous governments.

At PT, Mr. He has always been one of the coordinators of electoral strategies. What is the perspective on the party’s performance in 2024?
I am proud to have been the first coordinator of the PT’s electoral working group, in 2000. For 2024 we will do better than 2020, but anything in relation to 2020 will be better. But I’m not so optimistic that it will be something spectacular. I have a lot of concern.

The PT has said that it sees 2024 as the prelude to 2026.
That’s not it either. There is no direct relationship. In 2000 we won the Mayor of São Paulo without being in the federal government. In 2004, while in government, we lost São Paulo. For 2026, President Lula’s government must succeed, meet expectations, make the economy grow again, improve the people’s living conditions and employment levels.

Mr. Are you still affiliated with the PT?
I continue, but I no longer have any role.

Don’t have the desire to return to electoral life?
No. I am very happy with this new legal profession. I had 30 years in office. I was a leader in my city, in the Assembly, in the Chamber, I presided over the Chamber, I was president of the PT in the state of São Paulo. I followed an interesting itinerary.

Which was interrupted by the monthly payment…
The monthly allowance was a very cruel thing, but I’m past that phase of looking at it. I’m over it. It was unfair. That’s not why I don’t want to go back. I think I can help Brazil a lot in this new role that I am performing.

Does it still hurt when they call you a monthly payer?
It’s very rare, right? In fact, many years ago. Even during the most difficult period, I was never harassed. I don’t worry about it much anymore. I now want to look ahead and face the challenges that are presented and everything that comes my way.

But would you do anything different today than you did then? Do you think you made a mistake somewhere?
During 30 years of office and 65 years of life, unlike many people who say they wouldn’t change anything, it’s clear that I would change a lot. But I don’t think I made a capital mistake, as the monthly allowance imposed.

---

X-ray | João Paulo Cunha, 65

Born in Caraguatatuba (SP), he is a metallurgist and lawyer, graduated and with a master’s degree from IDP. Affiliated to the PT, he was a councilor in Osasco (SP), state deputy and, for five terms, federal deputy; was president of the Chamber (2003-04)