According to Alex Manente, passing the debate on the topic in front of others, as measures to contain the pandemic, makes the population interpret the change as a parliamentary impunity
The proposed amendment to the Constitution (PEC) of parliamentary immunity that is being voted on Chamber of Deputies has divided opinions. There are those who call the project ‘PEC of impunity’, because it creates new rules for the arrest of deputies and senators. In an interview with Jornal da Manhã, the federal deputy Alex Manente, from Cidadania de São Paulo, criticized the way the article was analyzed. “I even defend that we are able to debate the rules of parliamentary immunity so as not to allow abuses that are offensive to society, as seen by the deputy Flordelis still at liberty, but I do not defend in the rite and in the way it was made. It was debated in a hurried, hurried way, not allowing advances in the proposals, not restraining the abuses of impunity and, consequently, causing serious damage to the image of the National Congress“, Said the deputy. According to him, the speed with which the matter was dealt with gives the impression that they do not want to treat parliamentarians who commit crimes as ordinary citizens, but as people above the law. “It makes us very concerned that we don’t have enough time to pass the proposal on to the Justice Commission, then to the Special Commission. It is a rite that we carry out in every amendment and in every constitutional change. ”
Another suspicion that arose regarding the PEC of parliamentary immunity was the fact that it was put on the agenda just the week after the deputy’s arrest Daniel Silveira, because of a video defending the return of Institutional Act number 5 (AI-5), apparatus of the military dictatorship, and attacking the ministers of the STF. Manente said he was unaware of any maneuver for the text to be voted on shortly after Silveira’s arrest, as if it were an attempt to free him from the crimes committed. However, according to him, the fact that the vote is taking place now is a “very negative answer”. “I am sure of the vote I gave last week [para manter Silveira preso], but debating that issue now, many MPs are theoretically taking a blame that they shouldn’t have voted to keep his prison. ”
The deputy also defined the situation as conflicting. “We have the case of Daniel [Silveira] judged quickly and we have, for example, the case of Mrs Flordelis for eight months dragging through the House. So, it was necessary, in fact, to find a way that could amend the Constitution and transform it into immunity in a limit only for the ideological speeches that do not compromise in any crime. ” Still regarding the speed with which the project has been debated, Manente said that the focus now should be to minimize the effects of Covid-19 in Brazil and discuss proposals to improve the economy Brazilian population, so affected by the pandemic. “Unfortunately, we were unable to address these issues this week because of the desire to quickly vote on the constitutional change in parliamentary immunity, which, because of this, is being interpreted by the population as parliamentary impunity,” he added.