Minister André Mendonça, of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), presented this Tuesday morning (7) the justification for his request for a view (more time to analyze the case) in the lawsuit against deputy Fernando Francischini (União Brasil- PR): “This is a measure designed to avoid conflicting decisions within the scope of this Supreme Court, in favor of the procedural order and procedural rigor”, wrote the magistrate in the document to which the CNN had access.
In his explanatory statement, Mendonça indicates that the outcome of the case will take place in the Second Panel of the Court. This Monday (6), Minister Nunes Marques, who returned the mandate to the impeached deputy for spreading fake news about the polls, released the action to be analyzed by the collegiate.
According to Mendonça, “before any decision on the preliminary injunction” under analysis by the virtual plenary, it is “prudent to wait for the definition of the aforementioned collegiate body”.
The trial in the virtual plenary was guided by the President of the Court, Minister Luiz Fux, who convened an extraordinary session at the request of Minister Cármen Lúcia. She is the rapporteur of a writ of mandamus presented by an alternate for Francischini.
The trial started at 00:00 this Tuesday (7) and would go until 23:59, however, as soon as it started, it was interrupted by André Mendonça’s request for a view.
Before the suspension of the trial, the assessment within the Supreme Court was that, although the session in the virtual plenary on the same case is officially maintained, the analysis of the merits of the process in the Second Panel could lead, in practice, to the extraordinary trial lost the object.
Ministers of the Supreme Court heard by the CNN in a reserved character, they said that the Second Panel will analyze the merits of the action – that is, the magistrates will or will not endorse the decision given by Nunes Marques last week.
The 2nd Panel of the STF is composed of ministers Nunes Marques, Gilmar Mendes, Edson Fachin, Ricardo Lewandowski and André Mendonça.
Francischini was impeached in 2021 by the plenary of the Superior Electoral Court for disseminating disinformation. The indictment showed that the congressman released a video with false news about fraud in electronic voting machines during the 2018 elections.
The deputy was one of the main organizers of Bolsonaro’s campaign that year. When the TSE impeached him, his case was seen as an example in the fight against fake news.
André Mendonça – Explanation of reasons for the visa application
“This is a writ of mandamus filed by Pedro Paulo Bazana in the face of a monocratic court decision handed down by His Excellency Minister Nunes Marques, Rapporteur of Provisional Antecedent Guardianship No. 39 and Extraordinary Appeal with Interlocutory Appeal No. Federal Court of Justice.
Dispatch (e-doc. 9) came from e. Rapporteur Minister, asking e. Minister President the convening of an extraordinary session of the Virtual Plenary for June 7, 2022, from 0:00 to 23:59 for deliberation “on the matter questioned in the present action, at least in an injunction, to decide on the appropriateness and the request for a measure to suspend the effects of a judicial act by a member of this House”.
In order (e-doc. 10), His Excellency the Minister President, accepted the request of e. Rapporteur, for inclusion of the deed in a virtual session lasting 24 hours, to be held on June 7, 2022.
It so happens that the news came that the decision contested by the present writ of mandamus will also be put to a vote, for a possible referendum, by the 2nd Panel of this Supreme Federal Court, in an Ordinary Session also designated for today (06/07/2022) , at 14:00 hours. Thus, before any decision on the preliminary injunction required in this writ, I think it is prudent to wait for the definition of the aforementioned collegiate body as to the subsistence of the preliminary injunction granted in the records of TPA No. 39.
This is a measure designed to avoid conflicting decisions within the scope of this Supreme Court, in favor of the procedural order and procedural rigor, and to identify the subsistence or not of procedural interest in the present petition.”
Source: CNN Brasil
