Celso de Mello asks Fux to establish a trial for Bolsonaro’s testimony | Politics

The testimony must be given in the investigation that investigates whether President Jair Bolsonaro tried to meddle politically with the Federal Police.

Now it is up to the president of the STF, Luiz Fux, to define the day on which the case will be analyzed by the plenary session. This is expected to occur in the session on Wednesday (7).

The last session in which Celso de Mello will participate will be on Thursday (8). The minister retires on October 13.

Celso de Mello is the rapporteur for the investigation at the STF and took out the trial process in the virtual plenary session, a modality in which there are no debates and the ministers only place their votes in the system.

The decision to analyze the appeal in the virtual plenary was made by Minister Marco Aurélio Mello, who served on the case report during his colleague’s sick leave.

Due to the pandemic, ministers have been meeting by video conference, but they can read the votes, debate and argue during the session.

On appeal, the AGU requests that Bolsonaro be authorized to provide clarifications in writing. Celso’s order is that the deposition be in person. The PF even summoned the president for clarification last week, but the Defensoría appealed to the Supreme Court.

The issue of face-to-face or written testimony implies the lack of a legal norm for when the President of the Republic is investigated.

The Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that some authorities can testify in writing as witnesses and can also choose the date, time and place of the deposition. Among these authorities is the President of the Republic. But there is no specific rule about testimony in case the authority is investigated.

For Celso de Mello, the right to testify in writing and choose a date does not extend to those investigated. In the minister’s opinion, the Code of Criminal Procedure only allows authorities to send a written statement when they are witnesses or victims. Bolsonaro is investigated in the investigation for interference in the FP.

By sending the topic to the virtual plenary, under the license of Celso de Mello, Marco Aurélio had also anticipated his own positioning. The minister voted in favor of President Jair Bolsonaro giving written testimony before the Federal Police.

The investigation was opened based on statements by former Minister of Justice and Public Security Sergio Moro. Upon resigning from the government, Moro said Bolsonaro had pushed for changes in managerial and superintendent positions in the Federal Police, including the position of the corporation’s CEO.

Moro also appears in the investigation as investigated and received a request from the PF to present evidence of the charges made. In withdrawing the sentence from the virtual plenary session last week, Celso de Mello also asked Moro to rule on AGU’s appeal.

Lawyers for former minister Sergio Moro spoke on Monday and argued that Bolsonaro should testify in person.

For the defense of the former minister, the Supreme Court must maintain the order of Celso de Mello so that the deposition is in person.

In a document sent to the STF, lawyers assure that the measure will guarantee equality between the former minister and Bolsonaro, both investigated in the investigation. The lawyers recall that Moro was heard in person by the Federal Police on May 2.

“The Dean’s Understanding [Celso] This Supreme Federal Court honors the equity of positions among those who hold the status of defendants in an investigation process, since the now petitioner Sergio Moro was heard, in person, before the criminal prosecution authorities, in a long hearing held on 2 of May. 2020, ”says the defense.

In the lawyers’ evaluation, the previous understandings of the Supreme Court that allowed former President Michel Temer to provide a written clarification despite the fact that he was being investigated in a judicial investigation, were motivated by exceptions that do not apply to the Bolsonaro case. .

“It is necessary to recognize that the exception to the rule was given due to the particularities of the specific case, which are not repeated in the criminal matter analyzed here, given the repeated pronouncement of the police authority regarding the need for a face-to-face hearing and a legal reading of the rule, made by the rapporteur, Hon. min. Celso de Mello ”.

The defense alleges that there are several decisions of the STF and the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) that follow the understanding that the benefit of giving written testimony is not extended when the authority is investigated.