Legal community rejects proposal to convene constituent

In an act promoted this Monday (10/26) by the Brazilian Association of Constitutional Law (ABDConst), the government leader in the Chamber of Deputies, Ricardo Barros, affirmed that the country needs a new Constituent Assembly. Taking a walk in Chile’s plebiscite, which defined the need to draft a new Constitution for the country, the deputy said that the Brazilian Charter makes the country “ungovernable.”

“I personally defend a new national constituent assembly, I think we should hold a referendum, as Chile did, so that we can redo the Magna Carta and write the word duties many times, because our charter only has rights and it is necessary for the citizen to have duties with the Nation, “he said, according to the newspaper The State of S. Paulo.

“Our Constitution, the Citizen Constitution, the president [José] Sarney was already saying when he sanctioned him that he would make the country ungovernable, and the day came. We have an ungovernable system, we have had a primary fiscal deficit for six years, that is, we collect less than what we spend, we can no longer increase the tax burden, because the taxpayer does not bear more than 35% of the tax burden, and no We have given account of renouncing all the rights that the Constitution has decided in favor of our citizens, ”said Barros.

The statement provoked expressions of repudiation from the legal and political community. Streck loosening, lawyer and jurist, considered the idea absurd. “The idea of ​​a National Constituent Assembly is an institutional harakiri. An epistemic stupidity, if I may be sarcastic. It is unconstitutional. In fact, so unconstitutional that the STF goalkeeper would declare it unconstitutional. I keep thinking about the bullet stand and about to put the death penalty and the executioner’s career in the new Constitution. My curiosity is to know if there would be practical tests, if I can allow one more sarcasm “.

Via Twitter, the Minister of the Federal Court of Accounts Bruno dantas he generally criticized the opportunism of the authorities in proposing a new constituent after the approval of the Chilean plebiscite. “I have seen people in Brazil trying to hitchhike in the Chilean plebiscite to reopen the debate on a new Constitution here. It would be useful to study a little history and understand their democratic transition and ours. Just to start.”

For the constitutionalist Paulo peixoto, the problem is not in the text of the Constitution, but in the timidity with which its compliance has been guaranteed. “I believe that the deputy took advantage of the Chilean context to generate controversy. The Brazilian Federal Constitution, although highly modified, established fundamental rights and duties for the Brazilian State. Currently, we do not need a new Constitution, but effective compliance with the current text.”

To Estadão, the mayor, Rodrigo Maia, also rejected the comparison with Chile (Maia was born in Chile during the exile of her father, who was persecuted by the dictatorship). “The situation in Chile is completely different from that of Brazil. Here, the final mark of our redemocratization process was the approval of our Constitution in 1988. In Chile they left this wound open until today,” he said.

The federal judge and former president of Ajufe, Fernando MendesHe also expressed on Twitter: “Whoever defends the need for a new Constitution due to the plebiscite that took place in Chile needs to study a little history. All we do not need is a new Constitution.”