State of siege for corruption suspects.

   We can discuss whether we are in a sham democracy or a real dictatorship.

   The indisputable fact is that the measures being taken by the state against suspects of corruption crimes since the beginning of Operation Lava Jato three years ago are very similar to those described in Article 139 of the 1988 Constitution, which defines the limits of repression against citizens during a state of siege – copied, incidentally, from the state of emergency of the 37 Constitution that instituted the Vargas dictatorship (it was not yet called the Estado Novo) – without the state of siege even having been decreed:

Article 139. During a state of siege declared pursuant to Article 137, I, only the following measures may be taken against individuals:

I - obligation to remain in a specific location;

II - detention in a building not intended for those accused or convicted of common crimes;

III - restrictions relating to the inviolability of correspondence, the secrecy of communications, the provision of information and the freedom of the press, radio and television, as provided by law;

IV - suspension of freedom of assembly;

V - search and seizure in a dwelling;

VI - intervention in public service companies;

VII - requisition of goods.

   Article 137 states that a state of siege can only be declared by the President of the Republic, with the approval of the National Congress, and only in absolutely extreme cases.

Art. 137. The President of the Republic may, after hearing the Council of the Republic and the National Defense Council, request authorization from the National Congress to declare a state of siege in the following cases:

I - serious national unrest or the occurrence of events that demonstrate the ineffectiveness of measures taken during a state of defense;

II - Declaration of a state of war or response to foreign armed aggression.

Sole paragraph. The President of the Republic, when requesting authorization to declare a state of siege or its extension, shall report the reasons for the request, and the National Congress shall decide by an absolute majority.

   The pretexts for the states of siege that affected Brazil in the 20th century boiled down to the "communist threat."

   The current pretext is the "threat of corruption".

   Perhaps the most fitting definition for the current regime is "a state of siege for those suspected of corruption," something completely outside the law because it is neither provided for in the constitution nor has it been decreed.

   Everything indicates that whoever decreed it, although it doesn't officially exist, was the Judiciary, based on decisions from the Federal Court of Curitiba, adopted by Judge Sérgio Moro and later confirmed in subsequent instances and even by the Supreme Federal Court.

   Individual and constitutional guarantees have been suspended for three years, not 30 days, the duration foreseen for the state of siege – clandestinely – for all those suspected of corruption crimes, a clear affront to the constitution established by the power that should be its guardian.

   This climate of a non-classical, non-declared, but perceptible state of siege – denunciations, persecutions, intimidations, suicides – fosters the growth of the inquisitorial and typically fascist wave in which figures abominable to those who fought for direct elections, such as Congressman Jair Bolsonaro, are surfing.

  And like the little Mussolini of São Paulo, intoxicated by a power he doesn't possess.

   It is a state of siege that does not even comply with the constitutional rules for its declaration.

   An illegal state of siege.

   The fact that corruption is the target today does not prevent other targets from being targeted in the near future – in order to strengthen the state of siege.

   When we stray from the path of the constitution, we know where the road begins, but we don't know where it ends.