The leader of the Liberal Party (PL) in the House of Representatives, Deputy Sostenes Cavalcante (RJ), responded on Wednesday (30) to Minister Flavio Dino’s request from the Supreme Court (STF), to make an explanation about the statements involved in parliament amendments.
Sostenes use the parliamentary immunity argument to justify that he will not need to explain the minister.
As a federal deputy and the leader of the liberal party. With the support of the provisions of Article 53 of the Federal Constitution, I can exempt from providing any interpretations of the interview content, exclusively on The scope of the practice of parliamentary mandateThe document sent by the deputy said.
The answer came after Deno decided, on Sunday (27), that A deputy explains the data contained in an interview To the newspaper O Globo. At that time, Sostns suggested that he might fail to comply with an agreement between party leaders and mayors, Hugo Motta (Republican PB), in dividing commission adjustments.
In the document sent to the Supreme Court, Sostenes confirmed that his position is protected under the constitution and cited another inclusion in the same article.
He added: “The deputies and members of the Senate will not be required to view the information received or provided because of the exercise of their mandate, nor for the people who entrusted them or received information from them.”
In the interview that arose from requesting interpretations, PL leader stated that his party can take the full management of the committee’s amendments to the House of Representatives, instead of following the current agreement, which provides for a 30 % section of the committee chairman and 70 % for other abbreviations.
According to Soussin, this rupture will be a way to pressure Motta to direct the draft law that stipulates the amnesty convicted by criminal acts on January 8, 2023.
Looking at these statements, Minister Felvio Dino considered that there could be evidence of non -compliance with legislation and constitution.
Dino said in the decision: “The data that is attributed to the PL leader in the House of Representatives can note Sostenes Cavalcante, if true, that commission amendments will be in contradiction with the Federal Constitution and supplementary law 210/2024.”
The supplementary law that Dino cited last year was approved in an agreement between the legislative body and the judiciary, to resolve the impasse with the Supreme Court to pay the parliamentary amendments.