Teori denies PSOL's action and maintains Cunha's benefits.
The party questioned an act by the Chamber's Board of Directors that allowed the suspended president of the House, Deputy Eduardo Cunha (PMDB-RJ), to maintain prerogatives of his office, such as official residence, personal security, and air and ground transportation; according to the Supreme Court Justice's decision, the type of action used by the deputies to question the issue, a complaint, was not the correct procedure; furthermore, according to Teori Zavascki, the deputies' action does not show how maintaining these benefits could harm the investigations.
Michèlle Canes – Reporter for Agência Brasil
Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Teori Zavascki dismissed a lawsuit filed by the PSOL party questioning an act by the Chamber of Deputies' Board of Directors that allowed the suspended Speaker of the House, Deputy Eduardo Cunha (PMDB-RJ), to retain prerogatives of his position, such as official residence, personal security, and air and ground transportation. According to the Justice's decision, the type of legal action used by the deputies to challenge the issue—a complaint—was not the correct procedure.
In the filed lawsuit, Representatives Ivan Valente (SP), Chico Alencar (RJ), Glauber Braga (RJ), Edmilson Rodrigues (PA), and Luiza Erundina (SP) argue that by allowing the maintenance of prerogatives, there was an "offense" to the authority of the decision issued by the Supreme Court that ordered the suspension of Cunha's mandate. According to the representatives, there is no constitutional or regulatory provision that "guarantees" any prerogatives to a representative who is not exercising their mandate.
According to the congressmen, maintaining these benefits "ratifies the influence that Eduardo Cunha retains in the Chamber of Deputies." They are requesting that the effects of the Board's decision be suspended, with the immediate suspension of the prerogatives granted to Cunha.
According to the minister, the complaint from the congressmen is not the type of action that should be used to question the maintenance of the privileges of the suspended congressman. Teori said that the Supreme Court's decision did not address this issue.
"As can be seen, the challenged act only guaranteed Eduardo Cunha, for the duration of the suspension of his mandate and his functions as President of the Chamber of Deputies, the enjoyment of certain benefits to which he was entitled before his removal by the Supreme Federal Court. The decision rendered in AC 4.070, however, at no point addressed such issues; it was limited, in effect, to suspending the exercise of the elective mandate and the function of President of the Chamber of Deputies, with the primary purpose of guaranteeing the integrity of the criminal investigations relating to the parliamentarian," the text says.
According to the minister, the deputies' actions do not show how maintaining the benefits could harm the investigations. "Without making a value judgment on the legality or illegality of the challenged act, a matter that falls outside the scope of this claim, the fact is that this complaint has failed to demonstrate how the prerogatives granted to Eduardo Cunha by the challenged act would have the power to prejudice the investigations of the criminal acts attributed to him."