Video transcript
Pronunciamento
64 statements · 1 politicians · December 3, 2025
Statements by Marcos Rogério. 64 transcribed statements, with topic and stance on the ones the analysis classified.
Speakers
Click any statement beside the video to jump straight to the moment it was said.
Transcript
64 statementsFull transcript of the video. Statements the analysis classified carry topic and stance.
Mr. President, Madam and Mr. Senators, Brazilian people who are following us through the communication system of the Federal Senate, it is a sad day for democracy.
Brazil certainly watches with perplexity the news of the precautionary decision handed down by Prof. Gilmar Mendes.
I, Mr. President, could not fail to, following what the other Senators have done throughout this afternoon, express myself, because this decision amounts to a grave act, a choice whose dimension we must look at and understand.
It mortally wounds the constitutional principle of the separation of Powers.
They preach so much about separation, they preach so much that there must be harmony, respect for each of the Powers, but, faced with legitimate or not legitimate demands from society – and society must be respected as society – they band together; for now, not yet.
I would say they are banding together, but, for now, not yet, because we are faced with a single-judge decision, a decision by a Minister of the STF.
I make here, right away, a reflection: what will be the stance of the others?
Will they ratify the absurd, will they ratify the abuse, will they ratify this move that tears up the Federal Constitution, or will they take a stand in defense of the Federal Constitution of Brazil?
I repeat: we are not dealing with a mere procedural adjustment, no.
We are faced with a profound reinterpretation of the Impeachment Law, carried out by a single-judge decision, which alters the relationship between the Powers and reduces an instrument that the Constitution entrusted to the Senate of the Republic: the trial of crimes of responsibility of the President of the Republic, of Ministers of the STF and of members of the CNJ and CNMP councils.
Mr. President, what we are seeing here, what we are perceiving at this moment, is a movement of concentration of power, a movement that seeks to place one power above the others.
After all, that's what it is, because if we already have an environment where, given the political circumstances, it is difficult to process a request to open an impeachment proceeding, if before it was difficult, now it is impossible, because this is a shielding decision, a decision of self-protection, and that fatally violates the principle of separation of Powers.
Mr. President, Law No. 1,079 of 1950 provided, first, for a simple majority for the initial stages of the process: the report, the acceptance of the complaint and the pronouncement, those three phases.
There was no need for the quorum of 54 Senators to allow the start of the process.
Now, in a single-judge decision, he reinterprets the law, he rewrites the law – it is not interpretation, he is rewriting the law –, to say no, that this is incompatible.
The Rapporteur understands that the law as it stands is incompatible with the 1988 Constitution and fixes that any deliberation of the Senate to admit and receive the complaint against a Minister of the STF must have a two-thirds quorum of the Senators, that is, the 54 votes, which, in light of Law 1,079, is only necessary for the final act, the act of removal, of impeachment.
And so, simply rewrites the law, redefines what the Federal Constitution says and that, look, everything has to be in order.
We are at a moment in which there is so much talk about an attempt at a coup, an attempt to break with democracy.
One thing is the narrative of a coup, another are the legal facts and the decisions that represent the seizure of Power by force, but not by the force of arms or physical violence, rather by the force of the pen.
Here is the true coup, a coup against the Federal Constitution, a coup against democracy, a coup against the separation of Powers.
Now, if the original Constituent drew the model, if Law 1,079, which has already been subject to several reviews within the STF itself, at the time of the impeachment back then – and later with President Dilma as well –, again, the STF faces this issue.
But now, the decision went to a point one would never have imagined it would.
It went so far as to say that the Powers, although the Constitution says they are equal...
But they are not so equal, because there is a power here that is above the others.
There is a power that is above the others.
And I go further: besides this issue of the qualified quorum, another point: the legitimacy to file a complaint only to the Prosecutor General of the Republic.
Article 41 of Law No. 1,079 said that any and every citizen is permitted to file a complaint against Ministers of the STF before the STF, indeed, before the Senate, but the decision concludes that, for Ministers of the STF, this rule was not received by the 1988 Constitution.
But it was received in the case of the elected officeholder President of the Republic, because it was the STF that said so, yet the same STF that said the Impeachment Law was received in the case of the President of the Republic now goes on to say that, in the case of Ministers of the STF, Law No. 1,079 was not received to allow any citizen to bring a complaint.
Now, Mr. President, are we not faced with casuistry?
So he states that a complaint for a crime of responsibility against Ministers of the STF can only be filed by the Prosecutor General of the Republic in the name of a more technical and impartial control.
Well, translating that into practice, citizens and entities that wish to denounce can no longer directly file impeachment complaints against Ministers of the STF.
The power to initiate this type of process comes to depend on the will or omission of the Prosecutor General of the Republic.
I will not even get into... The decision will go into minutiae regarding the issue of suspension, will redefine the issue of remuneration, of salaries, will go into details, in a movement of rewriting, of redesigning the model...
Mr. President, I do not want to prolong my remarks here. Many have already spoken about this matter, this topic today.
The question that remains is: since when should the political control of state authorities depend exclusively on the will or omission of a single agent, the Attorney General of the Republic?
This does not strengthen the Republic. This does not strengthen democracy?
On the contrary, it weakens it; it mortally wounds democracy.
Why? Because it is concentrating in the hands of a single person the power to initiate or not, to bring charges or not.
Now, what worries me is that this movement is happening in the face of a movement by society.
This decision takes place in the face of a movement by society.
AI classification from the transcript of a public video. See the Methodology