The Federal Supreme Court (STF) has denied a request for injunction in writs of mandamus that question the approval of the Special Commission of the Chamber of Deputies, which analyzed the admissibility of a complaint of responsibility for the crime of responsibility by President Dilma Rousseff. The Ministers withdrew the allegations that there was a defense restraint throughout the process of preparing the report, and that the final text included elements that were not present in the original complaint.

The Plenary was accompanied, by majority vote, by the vote of Minister Edson Fachin, rapporteur of the Mandates of Security (MS) 34130, filed by the President of the Republic – represented by the Advocacy General of the Union – and MS 34131, by federal deputies Paulo Teixeira (PT-SP) and Wadih Damous (PT-RJ), denying the injunction request in the actions.

According to the rapporteur, the allegations of defense restraint are not supported, since the judgment given by the Chamber of Deputies in the prosecution of a crime of responsibility is only admissibility, and the trial of the crime supposedly practiced by the president will occur only in the Senate. Regarding the inclusion of subjects unrelated to the complaint in the committee’s final opinion, the minister understood that the content intended for voting in the plenary of the Chamber of Deputies should be only the material contained in the original complaint. Other aspects revealed in the opinion, he believes, will not be taken into account by Members.

The minister relied in large part on the STF’s understanding in the judgment of the Declaratory Action of Constitutionality (ADPF) 378, judged in December last year, in which rules were defined for the processing of the crime of responsibility practiced by the president of the Republic (impeachment ). At the time, the role of the Chamber was defined in the definition of the admissibility of the complaint, while the Senate is responsible for processing and judgment.

“The deliberation of the Chamber is a preliminary political judgment of mere authorization, and if it is comparable to the criminal investigation, it is a phase in which the adversary is mitigated,” he said. Citing excerpts from the ADPF 378 judgment, he also observed that within the Chamber, there are still neither accused nor litigant, and what is lost in ritualistic in that House, wins in the Senate.

In the writ of mandamus presented by the AGU are listed several allegations of alleged defense restraint, such as failure to notify the defense when the prosecutor of the complainants.