Moraes and Musk’s fight reinforces Pacheco and Lira’s duel

The conflict that broke out last weekend between minister Alexandre de Moraes, of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), and Elon Musk, owner of X (formerly Twitter), added another episode to the history of disagreements between the presidents of the Chamber, Arthur Lira (PP-AL), and from the Senate, Rodrigo Pacheco (PSD-MG). The clash between the Congress commanders was once again due to the differences in style of the two politicians, the different methods of operation of each of the legislative Houses they lead and also their personal competition for protagonism in the Legislative agendas.

Soon after the exchange of barbs between Moraes and Musk, Pacheco joined the government on Monday (7) and indirectly demanded that Lira put the vote on the agenda Fake News PLto regulate social networks and respond to the billionaire’s alleged disobedience to court orders.

Although she is not opposed to the creation of a specific legal framework to control digital platforms, Lira frustrated Pacheco and dispatched PL 2630/2020, also known as Censorship PL, and informed that a working group will be created to discuss a new text.

Approved in the Senate, the text did not advance in the Chamber due to lack of consensus. In recent days, Lira highlighted that approval in plenary was unfeasible after the measure was labeled hostile to freedom of expression. Regarding the fight between STF and X, he preferred to wash his hands and say that the conflict was restricted to the parties.

The truce in the clashes between Lira and Pacheco had already been suspended at the beginning of the month, when the president of the Senate surprised his colleague from the Chamber and extended Provisional Measure (MP) 1202/2023, published by the government, for 60 days, but excluded the section which reburdened the municipalities’ payroll.

In an election year, Pacheco’s unilateral gesture was seen by Lira as an intention to single-handedly capitalize on political dividends. Lira and Pacheco had already together urged Planalto to take a position on the MP, which would be exchanged for a bill.

Presidents differ in their defense of the Legislature

Pacheco and Lira also clashed at the end of February, when the presidents of the Houses discussed the Proposed Amendment to the Constitution (PEC) to regulate the actions of the Federal Police (PF) against parliamentarians. Pacheco spoke out against the so-called Blindagem PEC, which also protects senators, displeasing Lira, who did not want to earn the reputation of defending barriers to justice.

The noise prompted a private conversation between the two to smooth out the rough edges around the project that aims to require prior authorization from Congress to investigate parliamentarians, as part of the opposition’s effort to contain the escalation of operations in recent months that reach parliamentary offices.

The crisis generated by the clash between X and the STF also highlights the different degrees of alignment between the leaders of the two Houses of the Legislature and the Planalto, with the Senate showing greater cohesion.

For political consultant Paulo Kramer, the context of the fight between a judge of the country’s Supreme Court and the South African billionaire who has North American citizenship helps to understand how Lira and Pacheco have acted within their limits inside and outside Congress, in the relationship with the government.

“While the president of the Chamber preserves and expands his autonomy of action, balancing between the interests of Lula 3, Centrão and parliamentarians loyal to former president Jair Bolsonaro, the president of the Senate shows himself to be even more dependent on the protection of the “condominium” formed by the Executive and the STF”, summarized the expert.

A sample of this tense atmosphere came from Congressman Gilvan da Federal (PL-ES), who stated during a session of a Chamber committee that he was “fed up” with being asked to react effectively on the streets against judicial activism, when this it depends only on the president of Congress. “It’s a banana!”, he criticized.

The Constitution reserves to the Senate the exclusive role of confirming and dismissing judges from higher courts. The placing on the agenda of a request for impeachment of a STF minister, which can be prepared by any Brazilian citizen, depends solely on the president of the House.

Impasse encourages STF to legislate on big techs

The imbalance in the performance of the Powers of the Republic will also be exposed with the episode involving platform X and the Judiciary. Even before the new impasse related to the PL of Fake News, the STF took advantage of Musk’s criticism of Alexandre de Moraes to predict a trial by June that could expand the Judiciary’s control over social networks. Last year, the Court had decided to postpone the trial pending a legislative solution to the matter, which ended up not happening, leaving room for further progress by the Judiciary on what it considers a legal gap.

During the plenary debate on Wednesday night (10), senators Cleitinho (Republicanos-MG) and Eduardo Girão (Novo-CE) expressed concerns about the possible ramifications of the Chamber’s lack of definition in relation to the so-called Censorship Bill. They warned about the possibility of the STF intervening again in the matter, taking advantage of the impasse. Girão highlighted that behind the scenes there are rumors of a possible intervention by the Supreme Court in the operation of the calls big techs, ignoring the role of Parliament and imposing rules on its own initiative. “If this occurs, it will be the final demoralization of the Legislature,” he said.

Cleitinho also recalled the threat made by the then Minister of Justice, Flávio Dino, in 2023, after the PL was removed from the Chamber’s agenda for good. Dino suggested that, given the inaction of parliamentarians, the STF, of which he is now part, could make the final decision on the issue. “Each Power is independent, as the Constitution says. The minister was a senator and needs to remember that. We cannot let the Judiciary assume the role of legislator”, demanded the senator.

Minister Gilmar Mendes, from the STF, declared that the country is “lacking regulation” of social networks, when commenting on the Court’s clash with X.

Fight reached its peak in the MP processing rite

Since the inauguration of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) in his third term, the presidents of the Chamber and Senate have highlighted their disagreements on different issues. The biggest struggle involved the process of processing the Provisional Measures (MPs) sent by the Lula government to Congress, taking on the shape of an institutional crisis.

The Constitution provides for the formation of mixed committees of deputies and senators to examine the MPs and issue an opinion, before they are voted on by the plenary of each House of Congress, starting with the Chamber. The problem arose during the pandemic, when the rite was simplified, by joint decision of the Boards of Directors of the Chamber and the Senate, eliminating the need for commissions.

At the end of the health emergency, in February 2023, the Senate Board decided to resume the original rite, with the installation of commissions, without consulting Lira, who refused to endorse the return of the standard procedure. To this day, the topic has not yet been well digested, after dozens of MPs were at risk of losing their validity.

Another disagreement between Lira and Pacheco that is likely to last involves changes to the Electoral Code and the functioning of the STF, with initiatives already being approved and forwarded by the Senate. Almost always, impasses cause wear and tear and delays in Congress’s agenda, especially those in the government’s interest.

If debated, the proposal to amnesty those convicted on January 8, 2023, for example, could further expose Lira and Pacheco’s differences.