remember the disaster of the Dilma government

The decision of the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region (TRF-1) that shelved an action of administrative impropriety against former president Dilma Rousseff made the PT rekindle the narrative that the impeachment against the former president would have been a “coup”. On Friday (25), the agency judged a case for the accusation of the use of “fiscal pedals” by Dilma. Despite the narrative, the court’s decision did not adjudicate on the merits and did not invalidate the Legislature’s decision.

What the TRF-1 decided is that Dilma and the former Minister of Finance Guido Mantega could not respond under the terms of Law 8429/92 – which deals with cases of administrative impropriety –, because they were already held accountable through Law 1079/50 – which defines what are the crimes of responsibility. With that, they could not be judged twice for the same fact.

Even so, the PT tries to rehabilitate Dilma and asked Congress to annul the impeachment and, consequently, the symbolic return of her mandate. The proposal was defended by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT), who asked for “reparation” for the co-religionist. In Luanda, capital of Angola, this Saturday (26), he even claimed that the pedals did not exist.

This Monday (28), PT leaders filed a draft resolution that seeks to symbolically annul the impeachment process. In the document, they ask that the decisions applied to the former president regarding the crime of responsibility be considered null and void. The text is signed by senator Randolfe Rodrigues, and by federal deputies Lindbergh Farias (PT-RJ), Gleisi Hoffmann (PT-PR), national president of the PT, and Zeca Dirceu (PT-PR), leader of the PT in the Chamber.

“As can be seen in the Judgment of the 10th Panel of the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region, in the records of Process No. 1026416-75.2018.4.01.3400, in judgment of August 21, 2023, there was an analysis of what the prosecution lightly called “fiscal pedaling” or “creative accounting”. In a decision handed down by a collegiate body of the TRF-1, reference was made to the non-existence of any dishonest act, or even the individualization of the alleged acts of misconduct. And more: no intentional or culpable act by President Dilma Vana Rousseff or the members of her economic team has been proven”, argue the PT members in the bill.

But lawyer Angela Gandra, professor of Philosophy of Law at Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie, explained that the TRF-1 decision did not invalidate what was decided by Congress. “In fact, the pedaling took place and was condemned by Congress, as well as by the TCU. The Judiciary simply dismissed it because it had already been previously condemned by the representatives of the people. The impeachment therefore had a clear foundation, since the pedaling also aimed to deceive the people about the situation in Brazil”, said the jurist.

The Impeachment

According to the legislation, impeachment is a political-legal process, and it is up to parliamentarians to judge the Chief Executive for any crime committed during the term of office.

In the case of Dilma, the request for impeachment was filed by lawyers Hélio Bicudo, Miguel Reale Jr. and Janaína Paschoal in 2015, in the Chamber of Deputies. After being accepted by then President Eduardo Cunha, the process was processed in the House and had its continuation authorized for the Senate on April 15 of the same year. The proposal received 367 votes in favor, 137 against and 7 abstentions. After being evaluated by senators, the impeachment was approved with 61 votes in favor and 20 against on August 31, 2016.

The document pointed out three accusations against the Dilma government: the damage caused by corruption at Petrobras (which included the purchase of the Pasadena refinery and the scandals uncovered by Lava Jato), the opening of supplementary credits for the Budget without passing through Congress, and accounting maneuvers to disguise federal spending exceeding the limits of the law, the so-called “fiscal pedaling”. The impeachment process was opened based on the last two points.

tax pedals

The former president lost her mandate after deliberately delaying transfers to banks, as a way to disguise the government accounts, the so-called “fiscal pedals”. The objective of the accounting maneuvers was to create an artificial scenario in which the government spent less than its revenues, which did not happen.

According to a report by the Federal Court of Auditors (TCU), in 2015, the PT government was not reimbursing the banks that paid social benefits, such as Bolsa Família and Minha Casa, Minha Vida, on time – which characterizes a loan operation . In the first half of 2015 alone, there were R$40 billion in overdue transfers.

The delay ended up hurting the Fiscal Responsibility Law, which prohibits the granting of loans by public banks to the Union.

Also according to the TCU, the maneuver led to a misleading assessment of the primary result of public accounts greater than R$ 10 billion and R$ 7 billion, respectively, between 2013 and 2014.

Corruption at Petrobras

Despite having been discarded by Cunha, the jurists who filed the impeachment request argued that Dilma acted with leniency in relation to the corruption scandals involving Petrobras. At the time, in 2014, she denied the deviations that occurred at the state-owned company – despite having presided over the company during Lula’s management.

The document delivered to the then mayor recalled that former minister Erenice Guerra, involved in Operation Zelotes; Graça Foster, former president of Petrobras; and former state-owned directors Nestor Cerveró and Jorge Zelada have been involved in corruption scandals.

The president acted as if she knew nothing, as if nothing had happened, keeping her assistants untouchable and operating in the instituted power machine, in breach of the law and the Federal Constitution”, said the jurists.

International Image

The impeachment applicants also argued that there was a “deliberate make-up aimed at giving the nation (and also international investors) the feeling that Brazil would be economically healthy”. social.

“During the entire electoral process, Dilma denied that Petrobras’ situation, whether from a moral point of view or from an economic point of view, was very serious”, stated the lawyers.

Dilma’s impeachment was cool

Lawyer Adriano Soares Costa, specialist in Public Law, noted that the TCU judgment, in 2015, was clear in assessing that the former president’s conduct violated the Fiscal Responsibility Law.

“The Court of Auditors assessed a fundamental and concrete fact: there was a violation of the Fiscal Responsibility Law due to creative accounting. The creative Fiscal Pedal to justify certain expenses could not be carried out. her second term had an economic gap that generated the need for a ceiling policy made by Temer. So talking about a coup is a legal aberration and a political aberration”, said the lawyer.

He added that the “coup” theory raised by the PT, according to the party’s logic, would then be applied to all institutions that participated in the impeachment process.

“No one is suspended just for violating legal norms, they are suspended because everything exists: the political and social environment that demand this result. So, to speak of a coup d’état would mean admitting that the Federal Supreme Court, the Brazilian Judiciary; participated in the coup; the National Congress, therefore, the House of Democracy, participated in a coup, that society wanted the coup, ”he said.

Regarding the attempt to “return” the mandate to the former president, the lawyer stated that the PT aims to rewrite history. “This is actually an attempt to rewrite history. Because it doesn’t fit, it doesn’t fit. President Lula spoke very well that, in fact, it is a matter of narrative. This is extreme fake news [por parte do PT]”, he pointed out.

Angela Gandra also stressed that there is no way to talk about a coup. “In this sense, talking about a coup is absurd since the conviction was endorsed [pelo Congresso e pelo STF]. it was no longer necessary [o TRF-1] judge the merits of the action. It seems that we have here a deep case of fake news, in the regime, as Hannah Arendt would say, of the established lie. It is a pity that the criteria for the accusation of Fake News is selective”, said the jurist.