Senate sees interference from the STF and evaluates resuming topics – 09/18/2023 – Power

After the president of the Senate, Rodrigo Pacheco (PSD-MG), presented a PEC (proposed amendment to the Constitution) to criminalize any possession or possession of drugs, the senators evaluate two more measures against topics covered by the STF (Supreme Federal Court): union taxes and abortion.

The vision among Senate leaders heard by the Sheet is that the Supreme Court has invaded Congress’s competence to legislate. And the way to react to this is by changing the text of the Constitution.

In this sense, the first reaction was the PEC, presented by Pacheco last Thursday (14), to criminalize the possession and possession of drugs, regardless of the quantity or substance.

The measure was filed less than a month after the Supreme Court resumed the trial on the decriminalization of drug possession for personal use based on the interpretation of an article of law 11,343/2006, the so-called Drug Law. The score is 5 to 1 in favor of decriminalization.

“The law will consider possession and possession, regardless of quantity, of narcotics and similar drugs without authorization or in disagreement with legal or regulatory determination as a crime”, says the text proposed by Pacheco, who has already written an article to argue that the STF has no competence to deal with the topic.

The section would be added as an item to article 5 of the Constitution.

Federal senators and deputies protest against the judgment with the argument that the measure should be discussed by Congress, not by the STF. At the beginning of last month, Pacheco said that “political discussions” should take place at a political level.

Another trial that caused discomfort in the Senate was that of the union tax.

Last Monday (11), the STF defined that unions will be able to charge assistance contributions from all workers represented by them, whether unionized or not.

According to the thesis, approved by a majority of votes, the collection of the contribution is permitted, as long as the non-unionized worker has the right to oppose it.

The third topic, which has not yet been the subject of a decision by the STF, is abortion.

Last Tuesday (12), the president of the Supreme Court, minister Rosa Weber, released for judgment the action that deals with the decriminalization of abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy — she is the rapporteur.

ADPF (Argument of Non-Compliance with Fundamental Precepts) 442, presented by PSOL in 2017, does not yet have a date for judgment.

The action questions the violation of women’s fundamental rights given the maintenance of the country’s current understanding of abortion. Brazilian law criminalizes abortion with only three exceptions: risk to life, pregnancy resulting from rape and anencephalic fetus.

It also requests that the incidence of articles of the Penal Code on induced and voluntary termination of pregnancy in the first 12 weeks be excluded.

In the view of senators, this type of matter is legislative and, therefore, should be dealt with by Congress.

The three themes have been discussed by leaders in the corridors and also in weekly meetings, which define the agendas that will be voted on by the Senate.

It was at one of these meetings, last week, where the hammer was hammered on the anti-drug PEC, which ended up being announced by Pacheco shortly after the end of the meeting.

According to those present, the House is still studying how to position itself on the other two issues.

Specifically regarding abortion, the tendency, in parliamentarians’ view, is for the PEC to be more conservative than the STF’s decision, due to the composition of the college of leaders — the meeting tends to be largely made up of men.

“These themes are very expensive here and the tendency is to do something similar [com o caso das drogas]”, stated Izalci Lucas (PSDB-DF). “I have no doubt that the issue of taxes and abortion, depending on what the Supreme Court defines, will be questioned.”

He states that the debate in the Legislature, in addition to being foreseen in the division of powers, also gives more legal certainty to decisions on these topics.

“So we need to reestablish this security [jurídica]with the limits of each Power, and for that we have the Constitution, and it is up to the Supreme Court to take care of it”, he states.