attacks from opposition politicians, the mainstream media and conservative
sectors of society since the official announcement of her victory in the
second round of the elections of 2014. At first, even before the President
was appointed in Office, the opposition starts a campaign to spread
disbelief about the reliability of the verification of the votes and the
regularity of the computerized voting system. In unprecedented action
since the deployment of electronic voting (1996), the Supreme Electoral
Court authorizes the audit claimed by the defeated candidate, without
demonstration of evidence of fraud. As soon as this first attempt to derail
the Government elected failed, the candidate of the opposition, unhappy
with the defeat, calls on the brazilian population out to the streets to call for
the resignation of the President, accused of abuse of public accounts to win
an election. The main organizers of the protest movements self-defined as
"non-partisan and spontaneous", with conservative policy guidance and
financed by large national and international corporations, free-market
advocates, want the impeachment. At the beginning of the year of 2015, the
coalition of the defeated candidate asks the Electoral Court the
impeachment of the mandate of the President and the Vice President,
alleging abuse of political and economic power during the campaign (at the
end of the same year, the action is accepted by the Supreme Electoral Court
- so far not judged).
During the year of 2015, the opposition intensifies attacks. It is
the time when Petrobras becomes the target of the biggest operation against
corruption ever held in the country – made possible precisely because of
the transparency and control measures adopted over the years the Workers
Party was governing the country. The large private media promotes the
actions of Judge Sergio Moro – in charge of the proceedings from the
police investigations – as a show for the masses. This is done through
selective and partial coverage of the facts, accompanied by derogatory
comments against the Government and stigmatizing in relation to their
supporters. Large communication groups clearly engaged in deconstructing
one of the sides of the political dispute and strengthening the other side,
promoting the idea that the workers party is responsible for the structural
corruption in Brazil. Those groups reduce the size of the demonstrations in
favor of the Government and hide the nuances and complexity of the
political moment, placing themselves among the protagonists of the
campaign "Out, Dilma!".
Still in 2015, the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Eduardo
Cunha, investigated for involvement in the corruption scheme of Petrobras
and accused in criminal action for receiving bribery in accounts in
Switzerland, receives the request for impeachment based on 1) in so-called
"tax cycling" (2015), presented as credit operations between the Union and
the public banks (Banco do Brazil, Caixa Economica Federal and BNDES),
and 2) in six decrees not numbered and responsible for opening credits,
without legislative authorization. None of the two actions, however,
considers the constitutional requirement of offense to the budget law to set
up crime of responsibility, the only situation in which the Brazilian legal
system allows the processing of the process of impeachment.
Eduardo Cunha, still not removed from his position by the Ethics
Committee of the Chamber of Deputies, remains untouched as the
President of that House. In this condition, with the support of the
opposition defeated at the polls in 2014, he is about to conduct the first and
most important phase of the impeachment process. On the other side,
subject to cassation, without any evidence, investigation or prosecution of
tax evasion or property and values misinformation to the IRS, is President
Dilma Roussef, who has no offshore account, who did not figure on any list
of politicians involved with the corruption of Petrobras, who was not
pointed in any snitch for receiving or offering bribes who is not accused or
investigated in any police or criminal procedure. In one of the sides the
principle of presumption of innocence; on the other side, the presumption
of guilt as a political rule of the moment. Even worse is the fact that the
Special Commission of the impeachment process in the Congress is formed
mostly by politicians who, arguably, have received campaign donations
from companies that appear in the investigation of deviations at Petrobras.
Members of this Special Committee are investigated in the same police
operation in course.
Brazil lives a moment of great apprehension and suffering. On
the streets and social networks, hatreds are distilled to those calling for the
defense of democracy or of the right. Ordinary citizens or public figures
who do not participate in the "false consensus" produced by the opposition
became the target of attacks by people stimulated by the conservative and
dominant media, clearly interested in the reversal of the polls. President
Dilma is object of offenses, including gender offenses, through macho and
misogynistic jokes and insults. Political allies, by personal or electoral
interests, get away from the political support of the Government. Since the
election, governance itself is being threatened, many actions are rendered
impracticable by the parliamentary majority, in order to promote the
economic, social and political crisis that authorizes the speech. The right
has been used, by many lawyers or agents of the justice system, as a
political instrument of reversing the result of the polls, in flagrant
abandonment of elementary principles provided in various judicial
instances.
In this scenario, it is highly worrying the prospect of disruption
of the democratic order and the violation of popular sovereignty through
abuse of power. Or, in other words, by the exercise of a power that does
submit to the Laws. The lack of factual basis valid for motivation of the
impeachment, the use of political judgments, vague and imprecise, and the
breach of the constitutional principle of legality are the means and tools
which characterize what you might call a "legislative coup", "white coup"
or "covert coup" (the deposition of Fernando Lugo, President of Paraguay
in 2012, although not an isolated case in Latin America , illustrates well the
application of this political judgement, for deposition of the Chief of the
Executive Power in the Presidential System: "Bad Political Performance").
However, in the presidential regime, the trial about the political
performance of the authorized representative should be done by the
citizens, through regular elections and direct vote, never by the Legislative,
failing which of breaking of the Democratic State of Law.
NEW LEGALITY CAMPAIGN: LEGAL MANIFESTO IN
DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW
To the Honorable Madame President of the Republic, the
Honorable Senators of the Republic, the Honorable Gentlemen Federal
Deputies, the Honorable Ministers of the Supreme Court, and to the
Brazilian People:
We, the undersigned jurists, the law makers, lawyers, and law
professors from across the country, we hereby declare:
The New Legality Campaign: Legal Manifesto in Defense of
the Constitution and the Rule of Law
We hereby:
1 - Affirm the Democratic Constitutional rule of law, which should be
subject to the laws and take place through the law; therefore this does not
allow for any violation of established fundamental guarantees that
Constitution provides; nor does it permit the allowance of exceptions for an
impeachment process without clear legal basis;
2 - Defend the impartiality of the justice system, which must operate
according to the dictates of the Constitution and our legal system, which
does not allow for partisanship, selective operation of political persecution
of any kind;
3 - Maintain the repression of corruption, which must be done ethically,
transparently, and by the appropriate means required for a republic, which
requires an adherence to the law, without the law becoming too narrowly
defined or too flexible in its interpretation; furthermore our communication
system must be honest and reliable and avoid irresponsible use of the
media to communicate judicial proceedings. Eliminating corruption must
not corrupt rights;
4 – State that we strive to maintain stability and respect for political
institutions which, especially in a time of crisis, has to sustain the most
prudent position, in order to enforce the will of the people expressed
through the means defined by the Constitution through direct regular and
periodic elections.
At this present time, Brazil is experiencing the most serious
political crisis in its recent democracy. During the years of dictatorship,
many people suffered and sacrificed themselves so that we are now in full
exercise of our rights.
Corruption is not new and has left a long imprint on Brazil,
which is why it must be strongly opposed. But in order to eliminate
corruption, we must avoid returning to a time of serious violations of the
rights of Brazilian citizens that occurred during the military dictatorship
implemented by the coup of 64, enabling the relativization of the
presumption of innocence; arbitrary expedients as coercive conduct of
investigation or requests for probation, without due legal grounds; use of
temporary detention, without the appropriate legal conditions, in order to
extract confessions; illegal telephone interceptions that violate the
prerogatives of lawyers and even the Presidency.
Moreover, we cannot compromise our democratic principles that
govern our justice system, by allowing the use of media and unethical
leakage of information aimed at defame reputations and interfere in the
political discourse, and unduly influence public opinion to support such
operations.
We cannot accept the relativistic democratic principle in an
impeachment procedure without firm legal basis. The Constitution requires
that the President committed a crime, a crime that has been previously
defined in common law. It is not, therefore, pure and simple political whim
linked to satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the execution of presidential
responsibilities. The President is chosen by popular vote chooses for a term
of four years, after which the president’s performance can be evaluated.
Although the impeachment process is a political decision, this does not
revoke its adherence to law defined by the Constitution. The passage of
legislation or to issue decrees are also both political decisions, but by no
means can counteract the Constitution. By stating that a trial is political
does not mean that the Constitution may be violated.
The evidence of the commission of a crime is a constitutional
requirement for impeachment,. Even with a very methodical legalistic
analysis of this case, the conclusion is that there is no evidence of the
commission of a crime responsibility.
Democracy allows for debate on the process of how to correct
political decisions, but the final decision on the rights and wrongs, in a
democratic regime, lies in the popular vote. Even parliamentarians elected
by the people, are not given power by the Constitution to exclude the chief
executive, who is also elected by a democratic voting process, except only
under the strict and exceptional circumstances of a crime of responsibility
having been committed.
In this sense, we want to affirm that the struggle to preserve
stability and respect for political institutions depends on respect for the
popular mandate acquired through voting in regular elections.
