BRASILIA – Federal Deputy Eduardo Bolsonaro (PSL-SP) said that the vice president of the Brazilian Republic, Antônio Hamilton Mourão, is to blame for the series of controversies surrounding the government of his father, President Jair Bolsonaro.
In an interview with the newspaper O Estado de São Paulo, Eduardo supported recent criticism that his brother, city councilman Carlos Bolsonaro (PSC-RJ), made to Mourão in a series of posts on his social media networks, implying that Mourão should speak less.
“What has caused a lot of noise is the successive declarations of the Vice-President in a way that is contrary to the President of the Republic. It seems that if the general manages to fulfill his mission, which is to replace the president in the event of absence, Or the missions that the president gives him.If he is a soldier of the president, everything fits,” he said.
The deputy also mentioned that the self-declared philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, a “guru” of the Bolsonaro administration, is “a great reference” and that his position – another who is openly criticizing Mourão and the military on the plateau – is only a reaction.
“I think both Olavo and Carlos are just reacting to everything that jumps in the eyes of those who follow the policy,” he explained.
Eduardo Bolsonaro also stressed that the priority at the moment is the approval of the Social Security Reform, affirming that “it is already very accepted by the population” in the need for approval of the proposal presented by the Minister of Economy, Paulo Guedes.
With an extremely troubled beginning and only two parties closing the pro-reform issue, the text of the Social Security reform passed its first test in the Commission of Constitution and Justice (CCJ) and continues for discussion in Special Commission in the House of Representatives. But what does the procedure of the proposal reveal about the level of difficulty that the government must find to approve it?
In almost nine hours of discussions and clashes, the majority of CCJ deputies decided to approve the favorable report of Marcelo Freitas (PSL-MG) to the draft amendment to the Constitution (PEC) of the pension reform, by 48 votes to 18. Now, probably starting this Thursday, the merit of the proposal will be examined in up to 40 sessions by a special commission before being put to vote in plenary.
Defended by the government as one of the main measures needed to balance the public accounts, the reform already submitted to the Special Committee with some amendments made by the rapporteur to ensure its approval in the CCJ and may be subject to further amendments during the voting, opening space for a possible misconfiguration of the initial project. In addition, the proposal, which is considered not very popular, is also under constant pressure from the opposition, which disputes the very legitimacy of the proposal.
For the judge of the 31st Federal Court of Rio de Janeiro, Marcelo Tavares, who is also professor of Social Security Law at the State University of Rio de Janeiro (UERJ), despite the exalted moods and intense disputes, the reform process has followed the rite characteristic of the political process to date, and any debate that has taken place must be seen with normality. According to him, the first analysis made on the proposal was not an analysis of depth, but only of constitutionality, which leaves it open to judicial challenges.
“It is up to the Judiciary to do what is technically called repressive, or successive, constitutional control. After a proposed constitutional amendment becomes constitutional amendment or after a bill becomes law, it is up to the judiciary to make the analysis of constitutionality,” he said in an interview, commenting on allegations of unconstitutionality made by different politicians, experts and bodies.
According to the magistrate, despite the intention of opponents to seek from the Federal Supreme Court (STF) the annulment of yesterday’s session of the CCJ, this would be very difficult to obtain.
“The case law of the Federal Supreme Court is only inclined to annul legislative acts when there is some constitutional provision that is wounded in the legislative process.” When a ruling rule is not observed, which is foreseen only in the House Rules, the Supreme Court considers that this question is an issue internal of the Legislative Power, an internal question of another power, and the Supreme does not interfere. ”
According to Tavares, the quorum for approving the reform text in the CCJ does not necessarily reflect a similar expectation of a similar score in the House Special Committee. He explains that as this new phase of discussions goes deeper, the level of difficulty in approving the proposal should be greater, especially as the opposition prepares to wage a more serious clash.