Reassessing leniency agreements is a matter of national interest.
We all know what the state agents did, blatantly practicing lawfare as if there were no tomorrow.
By Lenio Luiz Streck and Luiz Gonzaga Belluzzo, Conjur
On March 29, 2023, three political parties filed a lawsuit (ADPF) requesting that the leniency agreements signed during Operation Lava Jato be reviewed in light of criteria established by the Supreme Federal Court.
The reaction came swiftly — no pun intended. Under labels such as "amnesty," "forgiveness," and "corruption allowance," critics of the action not only demonstrate a lack of commitment to recent institutional history, but also distort the requests made in court.
Why do critics confuse entrepreneurs with companies and call for the State to eliminate them? Why do they advocate the definitive destruction of wealth, income, jobs, tax revenue, and national content?
Why is legal action justified? Because we all already know what the state agents did, practicing lawfare In a blatant way, as if there were no tomorrow. Or does anyone doubt that January 8th is a product of the entire Lava Jato operation?
In any case, let's insist on explaining the obvious, now in a journalistic tone, at least to make it clear which side the plaintiffs are on and which side the critics are on.
A fundamental premise is that, in a State governed by the rule of law, each and every person, including those admittedly corrupt and those who spread lies under the guise of criticism, are entitled to fundamental rights and cannot suffer disproportionate or illegal sanctions. I have long written about guarantees: democracy is built on and through law. If politics or morality devour the law, then there is no longer any law.
What is the lawsuit about? Simple. And complex. Among the requests is not the "annulment" of the leniency agreements, that is, the plaintiffs do not intend to exempt the companies from fines and obligations to reimburse the public treasury.
The critics haven't read the petition. No, the authors don't want judicial hara-kiri. What they want is a review of the leniency agreements, to be conducted by the bodies and entities that signed them, but according to criteria established by the Supreme Court. We all know that the agreements were drawn up by acts of will imposed by the Public Prosecutor's Office, with judicial approval.
There's a million-dollar question: "Why are 'left-wing parties' concerned about 'corrupt companies'?" And the answer is clear, just look at Article 219 of the Constitution, which says: "The domestic market is an integral part of the national heritage and will be encouraged in order to enable cultural and socioeconomic development, the well-being of the population, and the technological autonomy of the country, in accordance with federal law.".
This means, in the best constitutional interpretation, that if national companies constitute an asset of the Brazilian people, their fate cannot be confused with that of their leaders. Elementary. Developed countries know this. You don't throw out the bathwater with the baby in it.
In this regard, a question is in order for critics of the action: faced with notorious corruption scandals, did Germany mobilize to destroy Volkswagen, or did the United States dedicate itself to burying IBM or Boeing? Absolutely not.
Furthermore, the excesses committed in the leniency agreements signed during Operation Lava Jato, which were loudly applauded by critics, prevent the full recovery of public funds, since they render companies unviable. Only minimally healthy companies can honor their debts. Elementary, once again.
The reassessment of leniency agreements is, therefore, a matter of national interest—just look at what the Constitution says—and must be treated seriously, free from the Lava Jato degeneration that many naively assumed had been overcome. Is there still any doubt that "Lava Jato" degenerated the law and fueled anti-politics? And by contributing to the collapse of companies, it betrayed the Constitution.
Invoking Ulysses Guimarães, "A traitor to the Constitution is a traitor to the nation."Certainly, the parties that filed the ADPF (Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental - Claim of Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept) in defense of the Constitution are not the traitors.