Video transcript
Pronunciamento
40 statements · 1 politicians · September 22, 2025
Statements by Sérgio Moro. 40 transcribed statements, with topic and stance on the ones the analysis classified. Topics: Parliamentary Prerogatives, Civil rights, National Security, Combating Impunity.
Speakers
Click any statement beside the video to jump straight to the moment it was said.
Transcript
40 statementsFull transcript of the video. Statements the analysis classified carry topic and stance.
Good afternoon, everyone, and Mr. President, Senator Confúcio.
I will be brief in my remarks here.
A reflection on all this mobilization surrounding the so-called 'shielding' PEC.
- Against
About: approve parliamentary prerogatives
From the very beginning I expressed my opposition to the text that came from the Chamber of Deputies.
- Neutral
About: approve parliamentary prerogatives
Moreover, my wife, Federal Deputy Rosangela Moro, in the Chamber of Deputies, voted against that bill.
- Against
About: approve parliamentary prerogatives
And, fundamentally, what I have always said is that it is the wrong remedy for a real problem.
- Neutral
About: ensure that insults and speech by parliamentarians remain covered by immunity
There is, in fact, a growing disrespect for the material immunity of Parliamentarians—that immunity that protects a Parliamentarian for his votes, for his words and for his opinions.
- Neutral
About: ensure that insults and speech by parliamentarians remain covered by immunity
This is a fundamental guarantee not of the Parliamentarian, but of those he represents, because he needs to have the freedom to come here to the floor or the freedom, when exercising his parliamentary function, to be able to say what he thinks.
- Neutral
About: ensure that insults and speech by parliamentarians remain covered by immunity
He can, indeed, foster public debate, and by fostering public debate he can be vehement and may, at times, include harsh criticisms of authorities and institutions.
- For
About: guarantee parliamentary immunity for opinion crimes
Everyone in this Chamber who knows me knows I am not a Parliamentarian given to insults or to bluster, but public debate must be preserved.
- For
About: ensure that insults and speech by parliamentarians remain covered by immunity
And the Parliamentarian speaks on behalf of those he represents; he cannot come up to the floor in a straitjacket and face the risk of being prosecuted if he eventually makes criticisms or utters sharper words directed at other authorities or institutions.
- For
About: ensure that insults and speech by parliamentarians remain covered by immunity
So, in this context, for us to consider greater procedural guarantees for Parliamentarians for—quote—"crimes of opinion", for example crimes against honor or any form of criminalization of a Parliamentarian's speech, is reasonable.
- For
About: ensure that insults and speech by parliamentarians remain covered by immunity
Also because, as it has not in practice been respected—the immunity is material—the procedural guarantee often ends up being a necessary remedy.
- Against
About: extend parliamentary immunity to common crimes
Now, never... And here I say: we can never accept extending some kind of greater guarantee or protection with respect to common crimes, with respect to the misappropriation of public funds, with respect to the crime of bribery, of corruption, embezzlement, all crimes against the public administration.
- For
About: impose barriers to prevent infiltration of organized crime into public offices and institutions
Furthermore, we must be worried today because we see the growth, in our country, of organized crime, criminal organizations infiltrating more and more into the economic domain and, likewise, our institutions are not completely protected.
- For
About: impose barriers to prevent infiltration of organized crime into public offices and institutions
We can indeed have members of organized crime seeking mandates, seeking public office, and there needs to be protection, a wall between the world of crime and the world of politics.
- Against
About: approve proposals that shield parliamentarians from investigation and accountability
That is why it is nonsensical in this scenario to think of altering the current constitutional regime, of creating mechanisms that, in practice, could represent impunity, that could even make it impossible to begin investigations against Parliamentarians.
So my position regarding this PEC, PEC 3, the so-called 'shielding' PEC, is very clear.
- Against
About: approve parliamentary prerogatives
With the current text, as it stands, I could never vote in favor.
- Neutral
About: strengthen mechanisms for preventing and repressing corruption
What we see is a weakening, in recent years, since the time of Lava Jato, of the fight against corruption in this country.
- Neutral
About: strengthen mechanisms for preventing and repressing corruption
We can point to legislative changes that were negative, such as the new Law on Abuse of Authority; the reform of the Administrative Improbity Law, which was excessive; the revision of the jurisprudence of the STF (Supreme Federal Tribunal) on imprisonment after conviction in second instance; and even the inclusion in the anti-crime package — a bill I presented to Congress — of some measures that were not positive for the fight against criminality.
- Neutral
About: strengthen mechanisms for preventing and repressing corruption
Of course that package had several positive measures, but some changes, unfortunately made during its processing, out of misunderstanding, ended up being negative.
- Against
About: approve proposals that shield parliamentarians from investigation and accountability
We cannot take a step further and, even more so through a PEC, a constitutional amendment, place in the Constitution procedural mechanisms that, in practice, make it impossible for a Parliamentarian to be investigated for common crimes, for crimes such as corruption, participation in a criminal organization, drug trafficking, violent crimes, any kind of crime.
- For
About: preserve the possibility of investigating and prosecuting parliamentarians for common crimes
The Parliamentarian must carry out his mandate with tranquility, but he cannot be placed above the law.
- For
About: ensure that insults and speech by parliamentarians remain covered by immunity
Now, I do not see it as unreasonable, Senator Confúcio, for us to consider procedural guarantees for material immunity, and here in relation to specific imputations, such as, for example, imputations of crimes against honor, because there, indeed, protecting the Parliamentarian against disrespect for material immunity is something that is justified.
- Against
About: extend parliamentary immunity to common crimes
Let's think of solutions, whether it is possible to use this PEC to, eventually, make deep changes that make clear a double standard: to prohibit, yes, the criminalization of a Parliamentarian's opinion, but never to open a door to impunity for common crimes.
- For
About: preserve civil liberties
Perhaps this is a balanced solution that, in some way, protects the exercise of parliamentary activity at this moment when, worldwide — to tell the truth — there is a certain emptying out, there is a certain excessive restriction of fundamental liberties — these fundamental liberties are essential to democracy — but, at the same time, without weakening even by a millimeter the fight against crime and without strengthening, therefore, any protection in relation to crimes of another nature, common crimes, such as corruption, money laundering or drug trafficking.
- For
About: maintain the current constitutional regime to investigate common crimes
For those, the regime we have in the current Constitution, in the current constitutional text, in my view, is already sufficient.
- Neutral
About: preserve accountability of parliamentarians for crimes committed in the exercise of their mandate
We cannot here ignore the history of sad cases in Brazil's parliamentary life, in which unscrupulous people abused the powers of their mandate to commit crimes.
- Neutral
About: preserve accountability of parliamentarians for crimes committed in the exercise of their mandate
Sad memory of Hildebrando Pascoal, who in fact was the head of a criminal organization.
- Neutral
About: preserve accountability of parliamentarians for crimes committed in the exercise of their mandate
Sad memory of João Alves, of the "budget dwarfs" scandal, which turned the public Budget, in fact, into a source of private wealth, for him and for his accomplices at the time.
- Neutral
About: preserve accountability for corruption and transparency
And, to give a more recent example, Federal Deputy José Dirceu, convicted in the mensalão for corrupting Parliament so that it would support projects of the Federal Government.
- Neutral
About: approve parliamentary prerogatives
Now, I followed the protests yesterday against the 'shielding' PEC.
- Neutral
About: investigate corruption in previous governments
I obviously respect these protests, these demonstrations, but I cannot fail to note here that, among the supporters, among the people who were protesting, were many supporters of the current Lula Government, which is a contradiction, a great contradiction, since this is a Government that was already tainted in past terms by the mensalão scandal, mentioned here, that was also tainted by the looting of Petrobras, the so-called petrolão, and which is also, in this term, tainted by the theft from INSS retirees and pensioners, which is the object of the CPMI of the INSS.
- Neutral
About: investigate suspicions of bribery at the INSS
As has been widely reported, there are well-founded suspicions that senior INSS officials, appointed by the current administration, by the Lula Government, are alleged to have received bribes from associations benefiting from these fraudulent deductions.
- Against
About: approve parliamentary prerogatives
So it is necessary here to agree, yes, with the repudiation of the 'shielding' PEC as it stands, but to note that the contradiction ends up weakening the message of yesterday's protests.
- Neutral
About: approve parliamentary prerogatives
Even so, here in this Chamber it has already become clear that there is not a majority [in favor], or that there is already a majority for the PEC to be rejected in the form it is currently in.
- Ambiguous
About: approve parliamentary prerogatives
Let's see if it is possible to save it, provided that no space is opened for the advance of impunity with regard to common crimes.
- Neutral
About: approve parliamentary prerogatives
There are doubts as to whether this may be possible; we will follow the coming days.
- Against
About: approve parliamentary prerogatives
But there is, indeed, this Senator's commitment to vote against the PEC as it stands, just as my wife, Federal Deputy Rosangela Moro, already voted during its processing in the Chamber of Deputies. Thank you very much, Senator Confúcio.
AI classification from the transcript of a public video. See the Methodology