[ad_1]
By not providing for retraction, the Clean Registry Law allows a kind of indeterminate ineligibility, which violates the principle of proportionality and compromises due legal process.
Fellipe Sampaio / SCO / STF
The understanding is from Minister Nunes Marques, of the Federal Supreme Court. It agreed to the request of the Democratic Labor Party (PDT) to exclude the expression “after serving the sentence”, which appears in Article 1, subsection I, subsection “e”, of Complementary Law 64/90, as amended by Law Clean (LC 135/2010).
According to the provision, they are ineligible for any charge “those who are convicted, in a final or unappealable judgment by a collegiate judicial body, from the sentence until the expiration of the term of eight years from the completion of the sentence”, for crimes against the economy. popular, public faith, public administration, public heritage, among others.
The suspension applies only to candidate registration processes related to the 2020 elections that are still pending consideration, even within the scope of the Superior Electoral Court and the STF itself. Nunes Marques’ decision is preliminary and the case must go to Plenary.
For the PDT, the wording given by the Clean Registry Act creates a kind of indefinite ineligibility. This is due to the fact that the agent ceases to be eligible with the conviction of a collegiate body, a period that goes until the final judgment; then he continues without political rights while serving his sentence, as defined in article 15, III, of the Federal Constitution; and, finally, he remains ineligible for eight years after serving his sentence.
With this in mind, the party filed an ADI requesting that any interpretation that allows the ineligibility to exceed the term of eight years from the decision issued by a collegiate or unappealable body be excluded. The piece is signed by the lawyer Ezikelly Barros and lawyers Bruno rangel me Alonso freire.
“The absence of the prediction of retraction, to which the initial reasons allude, makes the effects of the contested provision stand out indefinitely, ignoring the principle of proportionality and with a serious commitment to due legal process,” said the minister in the decision.
NAME
In the action, the PDT indicates that the period in which the person is no longer eligible between the collegiate decision and the res judicata, which can vary greatly and last for many years, given the slowness of the Judicial Power, is not discounted from the eight years after compliance. of the pen.
“The beginning of the fulfillment of the period of disqualification provided for in subsection ‘e’ after the collegiate judgment -aspect whose constitutionality is not discussed in this action-, ended up inaugurating, in a generalized manner, the legal system of disqualification for an indefinite period it is only known after the final sentence, already during the execution of the sentence and the suspension of political rights, and the very personal application, the termination period is defined by the time of each individual process, not by law “.
Also according to the ADI, “the additional and random period of inapplicability created by the concrete application of the norm prevents even the proportionality test, in light of the Constitution, between the total price of ineligibility and the protected legal property, since simply the deadline to be examined is unknown. ”
Unlike the three marks of ineligibility that came into effect with the Clean Registry Act, the original text of LC 64/90 had only two marks. The ineligibility began to count from the res judicata and lasted until three years after the sentence was served.
With that, it was easier to know how long the agent would be without political rights, since there was no time between the second instance decision and the final decision.
Click here to read the decision
IDA 6,630
[ad_2]
