Dallari makes mincemeat of Gandra and FHC's opinion.

247 - Brazilian jurist Dalmo Dallari, one of the most respected in the country, refuted the opinion of Ives Gandra Martins, commissioned by a lawyer linked to the Fernando Henrique Cardoso Institute, regarding the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff. Dallari gave an interview to the press office of Congressman Paulo Teixeira (PT-SP), which can be read below:

In a telephone interview given from Paris to the communications office of federal deputy Paulo Teixeira, on the afternoon of Friday (February 6), jurist Dalmo Dallari accused fellow jurist Ives Gandra of drafting a opinion "Absolutely inconsistent," suggesting the existence of grounds for initiating impeachment proceedings against President Dilma. "I don't see the slightest consistency in this attempt to create a legal basis for impeachment," he stated.

Professor Emeritus of the USP Law School and specialist in State Law, Dallari called the application of the doctrine of command responsibility in the Petrobras case absurd and recalled that, if they were to follow the logic suggested by Ives Gandra, former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso should lose his political rights and all senators in the country could be similarly impeached. “The Constitution, in article 52, gives the Senate the power to 'try and judge the President and Vice-President of the Republic for crimes of responsibility',” he said. “Therefore, if he considers that, even without proof of direct knowledge, there is an obligation to act, then this obligation exists for the senators as well.”

In the event that opposition parliamentarians proceed with an impeachment request, Dallari suggests appealing to the Supreme Federal Court with a writ of mandamus. "An action aimed at revoking rights without any justification is clearly unconstitutional," he asserted.

Have you taken note of the opinion released by Dr. Ives Gandra Martins? Do you agree that there is a legal basis to request Dilma's impeachment?

This opinion from Dr. Ives Gandra is absolutely inconsistent. He cites a number of articles and laws, but he doesn't cite a single fact that demonstrates President Dilma's responsibility. What he is doing is applying the so-called doctrine of knowledge of the fact, or control of the fact, which is absolutely absurd and not legally acceptable. He has not, in fact, made the slightest demonstration, either directly or indirectly, that the president was aware of the irregularities occurring within Petrobras, so I see no consistency whatsoever in this attempt to create a legal basis for impeachment. Furthermore, I can add an interesting point. If the basis is simply this, if the obligation to uphold administrative probity is sufficient for the removal of a mandate, then, by the same logic, the mandates of all senators should also be revoked.

Why?

Because the Constitution, in article 52, gives the Senate the power to "try and judge the President and Vice-President of the Republic for crimes of responsibility." Therefore, if he considers that, even without proof of direct knowledge, there is an obligation to act, then this obligation also exists for the senators. Consistently, he should propose the removal from office of all senators for crimes of responsibility, which is clearly absurd. There is an evidently political game attempting to create an apparent legal basis that, in fact, does not exist. It is a pure attempt to create an appearance of legality when what exists is a political objective, nothing more.

Recent testimonies in plea bargain agreements indicated that the embezzlement dates back to 1997 and reached its peak in 2000. If this is proven, it could somehow implicate former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso.

It's curious that the French newspaper Le Monde has just published an article about the French company Alstom, which operates in the Brazilian metro system, and which, according to the newspaper, was already practicing corruption in Brazil in 1998. In 1998, the president was Fernando Henrique Cardoso. So (by the same logicHe should lose his political rights. He should be considered complicit. He was negligent, allowing a foreign company to engage in corruption in Brazil. This also shows the absurdity of this attempt to create an image of legal responsibility when there is in fact no basis for such accountability.

Are you following the Petrobras process from Paris? What is your assessment of the recent developments?

I'm following this. I found a very interesting piece of data in an article by Janio de Freitas that directly contradicts the claims in Ives Gandra's opinion, where he says that the president destroyed Petrobras. A compilation of current data shows that, in 2014, Petrobras obtained exceptional profits. It grew significantly. There was no such destruction as expressly mentioned in Ives Gandra's opinion. This is yet another element demonstrating that this argument is inconsistent. It merely reveals an attempt by politicians who are disgruntled because they lost the election and cannot return to power. In Ives Gandra's case, he simply received money to write an opinion saying this. His entire career has been in the direction of an extreme right-wing, ultraconservative position, so all of this makes his opinion legally meaningless.

In a rough speculation, if the opposition moves forward with any kind of impeachment proposal, how do you think the debate will unfold?

I believe a writ of mandamus would be appropriate, an action in the Supreme Federal Court blocking this initiative due to an absolute lack of legal basis. In that case, the appropriateness is clear, direct, and indisputable. An action by Parliament aimed at revoking rights without any justification is clearly unconstitutional. Therefore, a writ of mandamus would be appropriate to halt a project of this nature.