By identifying the flagrant absence of just cause, the Minister Alexandre de Moraes, of the Federal Supreme Court, ordered the filing of a representation filed against the Attorney General of the Republic, Augusto Aras, by senators Fabiano Contarato (Rede/ES) and Alessandro Vieira (Citizenship /SE).
Initially, parliamentarians called for the establishment of a criminal inquiry to investigate the PGR’s omissions regarding attacks on the electoral system made by Jair Bolsonaro. The requested investigation should also verify whether Aras was silent on his duty to defend the democratic regime against the president’s attacks and on his mission to oversee the legality of Bolsonaro’s conduct in confronting the Covid-19 epidemic.
According to Alexandre de Moraes, rapporteur of the case, the members of the Public Ministry enjoy independence or functional autonomy, “with a clear and express purpose defined by the constituent legislator, that is, the impersonal defense of the democratic legal order, collective rights and rights fundamental rights of citizenship, not being possible to suppress or attenuate them, under penalty of serious setback”.
Thus, they are not subject “to the orders of anyone, only having to account for their acts to the Constitution, the laws and your conscience”.
This does not mean, according to the minister, that there are no hypotheses for accountability, which can occur “whenever there is abuse of power or misuse of purpose in the exercise of their functions, since the Institution’s guarantees — including functional autonomy — they should not be used as a true protective shield for the practice of illegal activities”.
However, for Alexandre de Moraes, this is not the case in the case file, as the petition did not bring minimum, necessary and sufficient elements to remove the independence and functional autonomy of the PGR, “failing to demonstrate – even in theory – the necessary typification of the offense of malfeasance”.
This is because the striking feature of the crime of malfeasance consists in the fact that the employee delays, fails to perform the official act or practices
contrary to the express provision of law to “satisfy interest or
personal feeling.” So this element needs to be demonstrated.
type-specific subjective. But the senators’ request, according to the minister, did not bring
“minimal evidence of the occurrence of the criminal offense committed by the investigated (wanted) or any indication of the means it would have employed (kibus auxiliary) in relation to the conducts object of investigation, or even the harm it produced (quid), the reasons that determined it (quomodo), the place where he practiced it (ubi), the time (When) or any other relevant information that justifies the specific initiation of this investigation for the offense of malfeasance”.
Aras’s hearing in the Senate, for his reappointment to the position of PGR, is scheduled for this Tuesday (24/8).
Click here to read the decision