The Communist Party of Brazil criticizes the Supreme Federal Court for removing Aécio Neves from office.

247 - The national leadership of the Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB) contested in a statement the decision of the First Panel of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) to remove Aécio Neves (PSDB) from his Senate mandate. The court, however, denied the request for the arrest of the politician, also made by former Attorney General Rodrigo Janot. According to the communists, "the position taken by the First Panel of the STF is an open disrespect for the Constitution and cannot be accepted."

The full text of the statement follows below.

Threat to the Rule of Law: The Judiciary Wants to Intervene in the Senate - By Haroldo Lima, member of the National Political Commission of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Brazil

The decision taken yesterday, September 26th, by the First Panel of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), to remove Senator Aécio Neves from office, is a blatant disregard for the Constitution and cannot be accepted.

This shows how certain sectors of the Judiciary, including the Supreme Court, are exceeding their functions, assuming roles they don't have, and usurping powers.

Senator Aécio Neves is today a disgraced parliamentarian. And he has been for some time. In fact, when it came to Aécio, the institutions, particularly the groups that are in charge of the country—the Judiciary, the Attorney General's Office, the Federal Police—simply did nothing. For example, there was the case on November 24, 2013, when the so-called "cocaine helicopter," an aircraft belonging to state deputy Gustavo Perrella, was seized with 450 kilos of cocaine. It had just left a farm owned by the family of Aécio Neves, his friend. The episode is now four years old, and there is no news of any investigation. Politically, the senator aligned himself with those who carried out the parliamentary-judicial-media coup in Brazil in 2016.

However, the problem is not appreciating the senator's bad attitudes or erroneous positions. What is at stake is much more serious. It is the precedent of one branch of government, the Judiciary, directly and openly intervening in another branch, the Legislative, and revoking the mandate of one of its members, disregarding what the Constitution says. Actually, it's not exactly a precedent, because there was already a precedent when a member of the Supreme Court granted himself the prerogative to order the arrest of another senator, in this case Delcídio do Amaral, who had also committed a discreditable act, but who, as a senator in office, could only be arrested in flagrante delicto for a non-bailable crime, as the Constitution states, which did not occur.

In Delcídio's case, the Senate examined the issue and, under pressure, supported the illegal arrest made by the Supreme Court, against the position of its president, Renan Calheiros, who, on this and other occasions, defended the prerogative of the House and the non-interference of one branch of government in another. Aécio, on that occasion, voted in favor of supporting Delcídio's irregular arrest! In that case, the Senate could have ordered Delcídio's release and then, given the seriousness of the acts attributed to him, revoked his mandate.

At a time when the Judiciary, through some of its members, or sometimes as an institution, is increasingly assuming arbitrary powers, that gesture of weakness from the Senate set a dangerous precedent.

But that doesn't mean the Senate should accept the truculence of a group within the Supreme Court, which would reinforce the idea that the three branches of government are "independent and harmonious with each other," as the Constitution states, but that one branch, the Judiciary, is "more harmonious" than the others.

Supreme Court Justice Marco Aurélio had already stated that "Whatever the accusations against the senator from Minas Gerais, it is not up to the Supreme Court, either as a full court or, much less, by a single judge's order, to remove a member of parliament from office. This is a very dangerous jurisprudential creation that significantly affects the balance and independence of the Three Branches of Government. A parliamentary mandate is a serious matter, and its prerogatives cannot be tampered with with impunity."

Now, on the 26th, Marco Aurélio added: "The suspension of the elected mandate, a true temporary, de facto removal, is not even foreseen as a precautionary measure to replace imprisonment, which is inappropriate in this case, and is not provided for in article 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

Democratic sectors, and those on the left in particular, should be careful. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander," as popular wisdom teaches. Maintaining constitutional prerogatives is a mechanism of democratic defense against the current dictatorial-judicial trend. In this case, the suspension or revocation of a mandate, according to the law and following due process, falls to the Senate itself.