A technical note from the Senate Legislative Advisory suggests that House Speaker Davi Alcolumbre doesn’t receive any of the 13 items that support the request to create a parliamentary commission of inquiry to investigate “judicial activism” in courts superiors – also known as “Wash Gown Investigation. The information is from the legal Conjur website.
Senate Legislative Advisory Consultant Danilo Aguiar said the bill is a preliminary version of the study, which is still in the works. According to him, technical work is only released after review and finalization. Attempted, the presidency of the Senate reported that Alcolumbre did not receive the document from the Consultoria.
In the understanding of the four consultants who signed the document, including Aguiar, the arguments relate to the judicial exercise, proper to the higher courts. Still according to them, “judicial activity is beyond the reach of the Parliamentary Committees of Inquiry.” The document is 17 pages long and dated March 20, the day after the Senate president ordered it to the consultants.
Last week, Alcolumbre went so far as to say that “a CPI of the Judiciary will not do good for Brazil.” Pressed by the senators who signed the petition and who supported his candidacy for the presidency of the House, Alcolumbre, in an attempt to save time, he stepped back, said that he never expressed any opposition to blocking the CPI’s progress and assured that he would refer the matter to the analysis of the legal area.
“My position on this CPI is in favor of Brazil. I want to make it clear that we will not accept interference from another branch of Power, but the Country cannot create a conflict between institutions. We are experiencing a delicate moment in national history, in which institutions need to be strengthened and harmony among the Powers must prevail, “he said at the time
In the note, the consultants ponder that “the requirement of fact determined delimits the field of action of the CPI, to the extent that the power of Congress and its Houses to conduct parliamentary investigations is not unlimited.” According to them, it must “concentrate on specific facts, defined and related to the Public Power”. “It is therefore not permissible to institute CPI to investigate generic, vague or indefinite facts.”
The consultants emphasize that the note has the objective of offering subsidies to Alcolumbre’s decision and that it will be up to him, “through due political judgment, to decide whether to receive the request, partially or totally.”
“It is not authorized that the Legislative Power immerse itself in the content of judicial decisions,” the consultants claim. “The Legislative Power is not allowed to evaluate whether the decision taken by the Judiciary was correct or not, or if the judge was in a situation of suspicion or impediment, as this would transform the Legislative Power into a review body, usurping the competence of another Power.”
Senator Alessandro Vieira (PPS-SE), the author of the petition, said the document appeared “deeply” wrong. “We are not discussing the acts of jurisdictional provision. We are discussing the antecedent moment. The consultancy has raised up to the possible receipt of bribes to the category of jurisdictional provision. It’s a desperate attempt after the pressures failed to withdraw signatures.”