Minister Cármen Lúcia, of the Supreme Federal Court, denied habeas corpus in which federal deputy Flordelis (PSD-RJ) asked for the suspension of the precautionary measures imposed on her by the judge of the 3rd Criminal Court of Niterói – electronic monitoring and nighttime home collection. The congresswoman is appointed by the Public Prosecutor of Rio de Janeiro as the one responsible for the murder of her husband, Pastor Anderson do Carmo.
In the request to the Supreme, the defense of Flordelis claimed ‘illegality and disproportionality’ in the first-degree decision that decreed the precautionary measures in the face of the deputy, ‘because she would be the first and only congressman to be constrained and limited in her freedom to come and go ‘. In addition, Flordelis’ lawyers argued that the parliamentarian ‘never showed any tendency or willingness to escape, or to evade the investigation of the truth’.
However, when analyzing the case, Cármen Lúcia considered that there was no information in the file on any questioning of the judicial order at the Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice (TJ-RJ), nor an indication that the Rio de Janeiro court had ruled on the issues arranged in the habeas corpus filed by the Supreme Court.
Along these lines, the magistrate considered: “From what is in the file, the present petition is being used improperly with substitute appeals. If given continuation to this habeas, this Supreme Court would be acting as a review body of first degree judicial determinations due to the function performed “.
According to the rapporteur, the STF does not have the competence to analyze habeas corpus, considering that, despite having jurisdiction as a prerogative of function, the deputy is judged by the first instance, since the facts are not related to the mandate.
In addition, Cármen Lúcia considered that there was no ‘flagrant illegal constraint’ that would authorize the granting of habeas corpus of office.
“The decision of the prosecuting court is based on supervening facts demonstrating the insufficiency of the precautionary measures previously imposed on the patient, duly justifying itself, by reasonable elements and appropriate to the exceptional gravity of the crimes being investigated (homicide consummated triple qualified, homicide attempted doubly qualified) , use of an ideologically false document, criminal association) and in the face of denunciations of attempted intimidation by one of the prosecution witnesses by defendant Flordelis dos Santos de Souza “, he recorded.
The minister also pointed out that the precautionary measures fixed in the face of Flordelis ‘do not hinder or prevent the exercise of parliamentary mandate, especially since it was defined by the first-degree court that those acts related to the legislative functions to be developed by Flordelis’ are excluded.