Opposition criticizes secrecy and irregular vote in the vote of the PEC do Calote

Opposition parliamentarians said on Tuesday (14) that the revelation that the approval of the PEC dos Precatório in the first round had information secrecy and at least one vote without regimental support reinforces the thesis that the measure’s processing was contaminated by irregular maneuvers.

After withholding information about the public vote for more than 30 days, the Speaker of the Chamber, Arthur Lira (PP-AL), authorized this Monday (13) the release of the list of parliamentarians who only voted on the proposal thanks to a maneuver he sponsored to increase the chances of approval of the PEC.

“It is a very serious fact. A stick that is born crooked remains crooked. First, the House’s resistance to providing data. This is a House of laws and should set an example of complying with the laws. And not set a bad example,” stated the opposition leader in the Chamber, Alessandro Molon (PSB-RJ).

According to the congressman, the disclosure of the irregular vote of at least one deputy should reinforce the arguments of those who are asking in court for the annulment of the measure’s approval.

“There are a series of issues that should lead to the annulment of the vote, not only on the merits, but also on the way forward. In the actions that already exist and, I am convinced, in new actions to come.”

Afraid of defeat, Lira sponsored the publication of an Act of the Board of the Chamber allowing parliamentarians who were outside Brasilia, on an official mission, to vote remotely, without physically registering their presence in the plenary.

A leaf it has asked for the names of lawmakers since polling day, Nov. 4, which included a request via the Access to Information Law, which was denied more than 30 days later.

When releasing the list after the publication of the article that reported the unjustified secrecy, the Chamber sent the names of eight congressmen — four who voted in favor of the PEC, and four, against.

In other words, without these votes, the PEC would have exactly the 308 minimum votes for approval — pointing out that Presidents of the House do not usually vote and this count includes Lira’s vote. The text, a priority of the Jair Bolsonaro (PL) government, Lira’s ally, passed through the Chamber in the first round with a slack of only four votes —312.

The list sent, however, contains at least one possible error, in addition to the indication of at least one irregular vote.

In it is deputy Zé Silva (Solidariedade-MG), whose official mission, according to official data from the Chamber and the report presented by the deputy, began three days later, on November 6th.

Zé Silva confirmed to leaf who was in Minas Gerais, his state, in an appointment with Governor Romeu Zema (Novo), on the day of the analysis of the proposal.

The act sponsored by Lira is clear in releasing the registration of presence in Brasília only to the congressman who is “in the performance” of a mission authorized by the Chamber of Deputies.

“I was in Minas, I traveled [para fora do país] day 7 or day 8. I was allowed to do the mission. It wasn’t who had traveled or not, but who had authorized mission. Even my schedule was public, I was with the governor [Romeu Zema], in Minas Gerais [Uberaba], I didn’t do anything that would disallow anything,” said Zé Silva.

Remote voting, as defined by Lira, is clear in allowing that only deputies “in performance” on an official mission trip could vote without registering presence in the plenary’s biometric identification system.

Another deputy on the list released by the Chamber, Paulo Bengston (PTB-PA), told the leaf who was in Brasília and voted in person for the PEC, starting his trip on an official mission just two days later.

“I voted in person. I was in Brasília. Yes [registrei presença]”, said Bengston, stating that he believes he has been included on the House list because he has an official mission already authorized.

Marco Feliciano (PL-SP) had said that he voted remotely from São Paulo as he was returning from an official mission abroad. THE Leaf, Abílio Santana (PL-BA) said he was on a trip to Angola.

All four of these deputies voted in favor of the PEC. The deputies who voted against were Alceu Moreira (MDB-RS​), Carlos Veras (PT-PE), Rodrigo Agostinho (PSB-SP) and Tabata Amaral (PSB-SP)

“Lira threw the legislative process into space. The novelty is the bionic vote: only those who are on an international mission can vote, but if they vote in favor of the president’s wishes, even Minas Gerais becomes international territory”, joked deputy Kim Kataguiri (DEM-SP).

“The lack of transparency has become the rule”, wrote senator Jorge Kajuru (Podemos-GO) on his social networks.

“To get the approval of the PEC dos Precatório, our internal regulations and resolutions were twisted and distorted in order to allow those outside the Chamber to vote. This was not foreseen and was changed at the last minute. This is a maneuver. absurd and totally anti-regimental,” stated deputy Paulo Ganime (RJ), the leader of Novo in the Chamber.

“The non-disclosure of the names of absent congressmen proves that there is something to hide. After all, if it were a legitimate and correct measure, there would be no resistance in complying with the Access to Information Law.”

In a reply sent this Tuesday morning (14), the Chamber president’s advisors stated that “the consolidated data, which resulted in the published list, were made based on official mission letters signed by the two deputies”, referring to Zé Silva and Bengston.​

The mayor’s refusal to provide this information for more than a month 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.

The episode adds to another example of a lack of transparency in Lira’s administration. The president of the Chamber and the president of the Senate, Rodrigo Pacheco (PSD-MG), resisted releasing the names of the congressmen covered by the Federal Budget funds 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.