Celso de Mello determines Bolsonaro’s face to face testimony on alleged interference in PF | Politics

As investigated, Bolsonaro may reserve the right to remain silent. The minister’s decision does not determine the place and date of the deposition, which must be defined by the Federal Police.

Celso also allowed, in this Friday’s decision, that Moro’s defense can accompany the interrogation and ask questions of the president (read below).

Wanted, the Attorney General of the Union, who defends the president, reported that he only manifests himself in the process.

In his decision, the minister affirms that face-to-face testimony is only allowed to the Heads of the Three Powers of the Republic who appear as witnesses or victims, but not when they are investigated or charged. In a recent dispatch, Celso de Mello had declared that the right to testify in writing and choose a date does not extend “to the person under investigation or to the accused.”

During the investigations, the PF informed the Supreme Court that it wants to hear from the president about the accusations, and Celso de Mello, rapporteur of the investigation, asked the PGR to comment on the request. The PGR defended Bolsonaro’s right to choose to respond in writing.

The Dean of the STF recorded in the document that he made the decision in the midst of sick leave, and that this is expressly established by the Organic Law of the Judicial Power.

It should be noted, therefore, that the magistrate, although licensed for health reasons – and as long as there is no medical contraindication (innocent in the species) -, will have the power, without prejudice to the license that he will continue to enjoy, to judge all processes. that have been held, for this purpose, before the start and enjoy the medical license that was granted “.

Celso de Mello is on sick leave until September 26. The minister’s office clarified that the decision on the deposition had been ready since August 18, when he had to leave for surgery.

The Organic Law of the Judiciary provides that “a licensed magistrate may issue decisions in cases that, prior to the license, have been concluded for sentencing.”

The decision of the STF minister contradicts the opinion of the Attorney General, Augusto Aras, who argued that Bolsonaro could choose if he preferred: exercise the right to remain silent; provide written testimony; or have the opportunity to choose the time and place of the hearing.

The issue of in-person or written testimony implies the lack of a legal norm for the hearing when the President of the Republic appears in the process as investigated.

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

In the demonstration, the PGR indicates that the norm of the Criminal Procedure Code for the written declaration of authorities such as President of the Republic, Vice President and Presidents of other powers, as witnesses, must be extended to all situations.

According to the attorney general, “given the constitutional structure of the Presidency of the Republic and the scope of the powers corresponding to the position, the same rule must be applied at any stage of the investigation of the criminal process.”

Aras also cites the STF’s understanding that it authorized the written testimony of former President Michel Temer, also investigated during his tenure.

“If the national legal system attributes to the Heads of Powers of the Republic the prerogative to present in writing the answers to the questions of the parties when they are witnesses, a situation in which there is ordinarily the obligation to appear before the courts and tell the truth All the more reason why this prerogative should be observed when they are heard as being investigated, a hypothesis in which the right to silence is applied, from which it is not even necessary to attend such an act ”, wrote Aras.

In a recent order, Celso de Mello had stated that the right to testify in writing and choose a date does not extend “to the investigated or the accused, who, regardless of their functional position in the hierarchy of state power, must attend, before the authority competent, on the day, time and place that it designates unilaterally “.

Besides marking the testimony, the FP must also prepare a report with the information obtained in the last steps. Among the topics investigated by the PF is the confirmation, by the Office of Institutional Security, that there were exchanges in the security team of President Bolsonaro in Rio de Janeiro.

Moro’s defense can go on

Celso also allows the defense of the former Minister of Justice Sérgio Moro to accompany the interrogation and ask the president questions, following the STF’s understanding of this type of procedure.

“In this context, I determine that the co-investigated Sérgio Fernando Moro is guaranteed the right, through his lawyers, to be present at the act of interrogation of the President of the Republic to be carried out by the Federal Police, guaranteeing him, in addition , the right to ask questions, if they consider them necessary and pertinent ”.

For the minister, this represents the broad right of defense. “Allowing the investigated (or accused) to have formal access to the other co-investigated (or accused), through the repercussions that are directed at them in the respective interrogations, represents a viable means for the exercise of the constitutional prerogatives of full defense and the adversary ”.