Lira fails to comply with the Access Law and withholds voting data from the PEC dos Precatórios

The president of the Chamber of Deputies, Arthur Lira (PP-AL), rejected a formal request for access to information and refused to divulge the names of the parliamentarians who only voted for the PEC dos Precatórios thanks to a maneuver sponsored by him to increase the chances approval of the measure.

The text, a priority of the Jair Bolsonaro (PL) government, Lira’s ally, passed through the Chamber in the first round with a gap of only four votes.

The President of the Chamber’s refusal violates the Access to Information Law (12,527/11). In its article 32, it classifies this type of denial as “illicit conduct that entails the responsibility of the public agent (…) refusing to provide information required under this Law, deliberately delaying its provision or intentionally providing it in a manner incorrect, incomplete or inaccurate”.

The attitude also clashes with the constitutional principle of transparency in public administration.

Remote voting, under the terms defined by Lira, allowed deputies traveling on an official mission to vote without registering their presence in the plenary’s biometric identification system.

The PEC dos Precatórios allows for the expansion of public spending and makes the Brazilian Aid of R$ 400 promised by Bolsonaro viable. In the early morning of November 4th, the proposal was approved in the first round in the Chamber by 312 favorable votes, only 4 more than the minimum necessary, 308.

Over the last nearly 40 days since the PEC vote in the Chamber, the leaf made numerous attempts to obtain the voting data and received successive denials, which culminated in the formal refusal of access to data via LAI (Access to Information Law).

Still on the 4th leaf asked the technical area of ​​the Chamber the names of the deputies who voted without personally registering their presence in the plenary.

The first information was that the data would be provided, even because Lira himself mentioned them generically at a press conference on the 4th. “The votes are open. There were six or eight deputies traveling, two in favor and four or five against” , said, on occasion.

In a second moment, however, technicians from the House claimed that Lira had prohibited the disclosure of the data. In reply to leaf its staff said that the request should be sent via the LAI, despite the fact that there is no regulation that supports the provision of public information only through the law.

By putting this data under secrecy, the Chamber president has withheld not only the information of how many deputies voted remotely because they were on an official mission trip, but also whether there was a congressman who was not on an official mission and even so voted without registering their presence in plenary, which would represent a swindle.

A leaf formalized the request via LAI the following day, November 5th.

According to the law, the only reason that there is no possibility of immediate granting of information is that the response will be sent within a period not exceeding 20 days, extendable for another 10.

The formal record of the request shows that Lira’s office barred the immediate provision of public information and determined that the maximum response time be used, that is, 30 days, without any justification for this delay.

“The Presidency’s Advisory Board requested an extension according to order in Process 852.236-2021. Wait until 11/29/2021 to register the extension”, says a November 18 note from the Chamber’s technical area, which was recorded in the processing of the request.

Only on Friday (10), that is, 35 days after the request, the Chamber sent an official letter from the Office of the Chamber President, without signature, denying access to the information on the grounds that it would require “additional work to consolidate data and information”.

The federal government informs that presidential decree 7724/12, which regulated the LAI, establishes that requests that require additional work to consolidate data and information must be answered, unless the public official justifies that their compliance “significantly compromises the carrying out routine activities of the institution”, causing unjustified harm to the rights of other applicants.

“The agency must indicate the reasons in fact or in law for the total or partial refusal of the demand, presenting the link between the request and the negative impacts to the agency.”

There is no justification in this regard in the Chamber’s response.

Lira was contacted at 10:30 am this Monday (13th), through his press office, but he had not given an answer to the questions sent by the leaf until 3 pm, the deadline given for him to manifest himself before the publication of the text.

The Chamber’s advisors, in a statement sent after that time, said that the processing of the process that resulted in denial of access to data via LAI was delayed only a few hours. According to the press office, “the sector responsible for the Management of LAIs works with a large volume of processes, which routinely demands a deadline for consolidating all the information”.

The office of the Chamber presidency said, in the late afternoon of Monday (13), that the technical area of ​​the House is consolidating the information and that it will be provided as soon as the work is ready.

The original response sent by the Chamber to the request via LAI also says that the leaf you should consult the travel periods on the Casa Transparency page. On the page, however, it is not possible to know who voted benefiting from the maneuver, even if the list of parliamentarians on an official mission is crossed with the list of voters. This is because some dates do not exactly reflect the travel period and some parliamentarians who were on official mission in this system registered their presence in plenary and voted in person.

The executive director of the organization Transparência Brasil, Manoel Galdino, said he considered Arthur Lira’s attitude “illegal” and “absurd”.

“They are clearly disrespecting the LAI. This should be in active transparency to begin with. They should give this information immediately. They can’t deny it because of additional work without saying why, it has to show concretely what additional work is required. create.”

Júlia Rocha, coordinator of Access to Information and Transparency at Artigo 19 —NGO defending the rights to freedom of expression and access to information around the world—, goes along the same lines and says she considers the act “absolutely irregular”.

She points out similar attitudes in Jair Bolsonaro’s administration and calls for a greater, more incisive role from the CGU (General Comptroller of the Union), the government agency responsible for monitoring the application of the LAI, to curb this type of practice.

USP constitutional law professor Rubens Beçak also claims to consider the Chamber’s act contrary to the laws.

“The people have the right to know how their representatives have voted and are conducting themselves. There is a very clear violation of the constitutional principle of transparency. The freedom of the press and the right to information demand that the people be able to have access to data.”

Elen Geraldes, a professor at the Faculty of Communication at the University of Brasília, emphasizes the fact that the Chamber, in addition to its denial, used a delaying maneuver.

“There is nothing, within the scope of the law, that justifies this denial”, says Geraldes, who has a postdoctoral research in Information Science on the subject of Access to Information Law.

The episode adds to another example of a lack of transparency in Lira’s administration. The president of the Chamber, along with the president of the Senate, Rodrigo Pacheco (PSD-MG), resisted releasing the names of the members of Congress who had received funds from the federal budget distributed by the so-called rapporteur’s amendments.

After an injunction from the Federal Supreme Court determining the publicity of these acts, and amid the comings and goings, Congress promised to make the information public within six months. Reporter of the case at the STF, Minister Rosa Weber established a period of 90 days for this to occur.

understand the case

• PEC of Precatório – The president of the Chamber made a vote-by-vote search to approve the measure, which included the offer of budget funds to parliamentarians
• the maneuver – Afraid of defeat, Lira sponsored the approval of an act by the Bureau allowing congressmen traveling on an official mission to vote remotely, through the Infoleg application, without the need to register their presence in the Chamber plenary (required by others)
• the vote – In the morning of the day November 4th, the PEC was approved in the first round by 312 votes (the minimum was 308) against 144.
• Order – On the same day, the leaf asked the Chamber for the names of parliamentarians who voted without registering their presence in the Chamber’s plenary. The House promised to provide the data, but later backed down, claiming that there was a veto by Lira
• Request via the Access to Information Law – A leaf made the request on the 5th of November
• Processing – on November 18, the Chamber’s system records that the “President’s office requested an extension”, and highlights in red letters: “Wait until 11/29/2021 to register the extension. on November 29, the Chamber informed about the extension.
• Reply: on December 10th, the Chamber Presidency’s office denies access to the information arguing that the application requires additional work from data consolidation and
• information
• What does the Access to Information Act (12,527/11) say? – Art. 11: “The public body or entity shall authorize or grant immediate access to available information”. Art. 32. “Constitute unlawful conduct (…) refuse to provide information required under this Law, deliberately delay its provision or intentionally provide it incorrectly, incompletely or inaccurately”
• What does presidential decree 7724/12, which regulates the LAI in the Federal Executive Branch and which served as the basis for the regulation of the Chamber, say – Art. 13. “Requests for access to information will not be accepted (…) III – that require additional analysis, interpretation or data and information consolidation“
• What does the CGU (Comptroller General of the Union), responsible for monitoring the application of the LAI, say about the refusal of requests that require data consolidation work and information – the request can only be denied if the service “makes the work of an entire unit of the agency or public entity unfeasible for a considerable period”. “The analysis of the impact of the request on the exercise of routine functions of a public agency — for the purpose of characterizing its disproportionality — must always be based on objective data. This is because the Administration has the burden of proving it, when denying access to information”
• what Arthur Lira says: questioned through his press office on November 5th and this Monday (13th), he did not comment. His office said, however, that the names of the parliamentarians will be disclosed.