:strip_icc()/s04.video.glbimg.com/x720/8824163.jpg)
[ad_1]
The National Council of the Public Ministry (CNMP) decided on Tuesday (8), by nine votes to one, punish the prosecutor Deltan dallagnol by social media posts in which he spoke out against the election of Senator Renan Calheiros (MDB-AL) for the presidency of the Senate in 2019.
The censorship penalty is the second lightest applied by the city council, after the warning. It slows down career progression and serves as an aggravating factor in other processes on the board. Lawyers can also be sanctioned with suspension, dismissal or retirement from retirement.
The lawsuit was filed by Calheiros, who claimed Dallagnol’s interference in the Senate presidential race. The messages said, for example, that if Calheiros were elected, “we will hardly see anti-corruption reforms passed.”
Calheiros lost the race to Davi Alcolumbre (DEM-AP).
The lawsuit against Dallagnol was placed on the board’s agenda after the decision on Friday (4) of Minister Gilmar Mendes, of the Federal Supreme Court (STF).
Mendes reviewed an earlier decision by STF minister Celso de Mello, which had paralyzed analysis of the case. With health problems, Mello has been away from the Supreme Court since August 19.
Deltan Dallagnol announces that he is leaving the Lava Jato working group
Also by order of the Supreme Court, of Minister Luiz Fux, the council could not consider a 2019 warning sanction to aggravate the disciplinary situation of Deltan Dallagnol in new cases.
The reporter on the case, counselor Otávio Rodrigues, voted to apply the penalty of censorship to Deltan and argued that this case should not be reduced to a debate on freedom of expression.
The counselor stated that Deltan “went beyond the limits of simple criticism, with personal statements that were uncomfortable for the victim,” and that the prosecutor “deliberately attacked not only a senator of the Republic, but also the Legislative Power.”
Still according to Rodrigues, the member of the Public Ministry “is responsible for ensuring the fluidity of the electoral process, under penalty of damaging the institution’s own credibility.”
“To reduce this case to a debate on freedom of expression is to ignore the immense risk to democracy when the doors are opened to unelected, permanent and immovable agents, to dispute spaces, narratives and, ultimately, power, with elected agents , dependent on periodic popular suffrage ”.
“Nothing prevents the former from leaving the comfort of their public positions, resigning from the judicial or ministerial magistracy, and entering the party arena, disputing votes and spaces in the media without the reputational protection that gown and gown they almost always lend to those who use them. “Said the rapporteur.
“The member of the Public Ministry must refrain from holding public demonstrations, because by doing so, they also compromise the exemption before society,” the councilor concluded.
