PCdoB in legal action taken against Dosimetry Law in Brasil

PCdoB, PT and PV  have filed a direct action of unconstitutionality against the Sentencing Law, which was enacted by the president of Congress. They have also filed a direct action of unconstitutionality (Adin) with the STF against the Dosimetry Law, which was enacted on 8 May by Davi Alcolumbre, the president of Congress (União Brasil).

The new legislation reduces sentences for individuals convicted of coup attempts on 8 January 2023, including former President Jair Bolsonaro and military personnel.

The PCdoB and its allies are requesting a precautionary measure to immediately suspend the effects of the contested law, and on the merits, they are requesting that the rule be declared entirely unconstitutional.

Jandira Feghali, the PCdoB leader in the Chamber of Deputies (representing Rio de Janeiro), said that the action aims to annul the Congressional session that overturned President Lula's veto on the Sentencing Bill, which is the prelude to amnesty.

"Not only were unconstitutional maneuvers carried out in that session, but fundamental clauses of the Constitution were violated too. Those who voted in favor of overturning the veto and those who voted before the law was passed are protecting criminals involved in various crimes, including those against Brazilian democracy,” said Feghali.

The parties also claim that President Lula vetoed the entire bill. However, the Senate president ruled that only part of the bill would be vetoed, effectively turning a 'no' into a 'partial no'. Congress does not have the power to alter the nature of a presidential veto in this case; it must either accept or overturn it.

The lawsuit also questions the practical impact of the new law on sentencing. For instance, it removes crimes against the Democratic Rule of Law from the list of offences subject to stricter parole rules, even if they involve violence or serious threats.

Furthermore, the new law introduces a mechanism that prevents judges from imposing consecutive sentences for multiple crimes against institutions, which could significantly reduce the total prison time.

Another unprecedented benefit is that if a crime is committed in the midst of a crowd, the sentence is automatically reduced.

Political parties argue that this reverses the logic, since crimes committed in groups are usually considered the most serious. The text obliges judges to apply these reductions automatically, removing their chance to assess the severity of each case individually.

Finally, political parties argue that the law represents a social setback because it fails to protect democracy by failing to impose proportional punishments for attacks on institutions.