President of the Federative Republic of Brazil from January 2011 to August 2016, having been re-elected in the 2014 elections, Dilma Vana Rousseff, of Workers Party (PT), underwent a process of impeachmentwhose procedures lasted from April 17th to August 31st of the year 2016. As a result of the process, President Dilma was removed from the post of president, remaining, however, with her political rights preserved, contrary to what provides for article 52 of the Federal Constitution, which does not dissociate the loss of office of president with his consequent disqualification from exercising public functions for eight years. This dissociation from the penalty will be explained at the end of this text.
Requests for impeachment filed against Dilma Rousseff
In 2015 alone, 50 requests for impeachment against Dilma Rousseff. Of these 50, 39 were filed for reasons such as: lack of evidence and weak legal arguments. The remaining 11 focused on points such as: the violation of the Budget Guidelines Law (
LDO) and the Fiscal Responsibility Law (LRF), as well as the practice of acts of corruption investigated by the Car Wash Operation, denounced by the then senator Delcídio do Amaral (PT), in testimony to the aforementioned operation of which he was one of the investigated.Request accepted by the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate
Of the requests filed, the one that was accepted by the then president of the Chamber of Deputies, EdwardWedge, was elaborated by the jurists Miguel Reale Jr., Janaína Conceição Paschoal and Helium Beaked (the latter having also exercised a political career and participated, in the early 1980s, in the founding of the Workers' Party). The request of these jurists was filed on October 15, 2015 and accepted by Cunha on December 2 of the same year.
The intense social mobilizations that took place throughout 2015 contributed to the acceptance of the request, especially the demonstrations on March 15, organized by groups such as Free Brazil Movement (MBL) and Come to the street. The leaders of three of these groups officially signed the request: Carla Zambelli Salgado (Movement Against Corruption), KimSponsorKataguiri (Free Brazil Movement) and Rogeriocheck (Come to the street).
On April 17, 2016, 367 federal deputies voted in favor of admissibility of the impeachment process in the Chamber against 137 who voted for its rejection. From the Chamber, the process went to the Federal Senate, where it was admitted on May 12, 2016, with the vote of 55 of the 81 senators in the house. The president was then temporarily removed from her duties until all the work of a Special Impeachment Commission were carried out. MichelTo fear, the vice president, assumed the role interim.
Whistleblower's central argument
The authors of the request, Janaína Paschoal, Miguel Reale and Hélio Bicudo, denounced crimes of responsibility committed by the president and provided for in article 85 of the Federal Constitution and in Law 1079 of April 10, 1950, which defines this type of crime. The complainants' arguments were based on technical evidence, such as those produced by the court Union accounts. Details of the text of the formulation of the complaint can be read in the excerpt below:
The denouncers, obviously, would prefer that the President of the Republic be able to carry out her term of office. However, the situation is so drastic and the behavior of the Head of the nation is so unacceptable, that there is no alternative but to ask her Chamber of Deputies that authorizes it to be prosecuted for the crimes of responsibility provided for in article 85, items V, VI, and VII, of the Federal Constitution; in articles 4, items V and VI; 9, numbers 3 and 7; 10 numbers 6, 7, 8 and 9; 11, number 3, of Law 1079/1950. [1]
According to the complainants, Dilma Rousseff committed two crimes of responsibility: a) opening additional credits without the authorization of the National Congress; b) carrying out credit operations with a financial institution controlled by the Federal Government (the so-called “pedalingtax”).
defense arguments
In the Special Impeachment Commission, the presidency of the works was delegated to the senator Raimundo Lira (PMDB), and the report, to the senator Antonio Anastasia (PSDB). The president's defense was exercised by José Eduardo Cardozo, while the indictment was delegated to Janaína Paschoal. The senators participating in the Commission had the task of interviewing witnesses who could give reasons the arguments and evidence of the process, as well as deliberating politically and legally on the crimes in question.
Senators aligned with the defense of Dilma Rousseff argued that there was no crime of responsibility and what was seen, besides an attempt to “criminalization of fiscal policy” carried out by the president, was a process based on “arguments without proof”, since, for these senators, the decrees issued by the president would be “mere authorization to spend” and would therefore have no “impact on the performance of the expense. This, in turn, would be controlled by the contingency decrees. Regarding this aspect, in 2015, the government would have promoted the largest contingency in history and fulfilled the target in effect at the end of the year" [2].
These arguments were rebutted by the prosecution and the senators aligned with it. In the words of the rapporteur Antônio Anastasia, we can see a rebuttal to the defense:
“We consider the defense's argument that only execution would be subject to the requirement of compatibility with the primary outcome goal as untenable. The LRF (Fiscal Responsibility Law) also requires that the Budget Law project be accompanied by statement of budgetary programming compatibility with the fiscal targets set by the LDO (Law of Guidelines Budget).” [3]
The rapporteur continues:
In the absence of a link to the goal, the budget would become an authentic piece of fiction, which would authorize expenses without the effective availability of resources. The budget is not a list of projects made available to the Executive Branch. Its schedules correspond to allocations of scarce resources, democratically decided by the Legislature. [4]
The narrative of the "parliamentary coup"
Senators aligned with Rousseff's defense continued to defend the lack of evidence in the complaint of the request and the fragile nature of the indictment. This conviction evolved into a narrative that lasted until the day of the final vote of the impeachment and it was even appropriated by President Dilma herself: the narrative of “coupparliamentary”. This “coup” would have been articulated between vice president Michel Temer, federal deputy Eduardo Cunha, who received the request, and other characters aligned with the accusation.
Final vote and application by Vincentinho Alves
The fact is that, from August 29 to 31, 2016, the final section of the process took place at the Federal Senate. impeachment, chaired by the President of the Supreme Federal Court, RicardoLewandowski.On the first day, Dilma made her final defense and was interrogated, a posteriori, by the senators. Then followed the closing speeches of the defense and prosecution attorneys. Finally, there were the senators' final speeches and the final vote that would decide Rousseff's political future.
However, on the 31st, before the vote took place, the senator VincentAlves made a request to the presidency, asking that there be a highlight in the vote, that is, that the vote be “sliced” into two parts: 1) the senators would vote for the removal of the president's office; 2) the senators would vote for the loss of her political rights. As the text of the application says:
I require, pursuant to art. 312, II and sole paragraph of the Internal Regulations of the Federal Senate, the highlighting of the expression - quotation marks - "being, as a result, unable to exercise any function public for a period of eight years” – close quotes – of the item that is the object of judgment by the President of the Republic, Dilma Vana Rousseff, Complaint 1, 2016.
Lewandowski accepted the request and left the final decision for prominence to the bench of senators, who decided to vote separately. Finally, Dilma was removed from office with a vote of 61 senators, but her political rights were preserved. This separation provoked intense controversy, as it did not have explicit constitutional support.
GRADES
[1] BICUDO, PASCHOAL, REALE. Request for Impeachment of the President of the Republic Dilma Rousseff. pp. 60-61.
[2] ANASTASIA, Antonio. Opinion on the Special Committee on Impeachment. for. 258.
[3] ANASTASIA, Antonio.Idem. for. 258.
[4] ANASTASIA, Antonio.Idem. for. 258.
* Image credits: Federal Senate Agency
By Me. Cláudio Fernandes
Source: Brazil School - https://brasilescola.uol.com.br/historiab/impeachment-dilma-rousseff.htm
