Opinion reiterates position of MPF by stoppage of Belo Monte

 

Opinion reiterates position of MPF by stoppage of Belo Monte

 

 

According to the opinion, the complaint of AGU must be dismissed before the constitutional requirement of prior hearing of the indigenous communities affected by the business

The Attorney General’s Office sent the Supreme Court opinion of merit in the complaint (Rcl 14404) filed by the Union to suspend an injunction that ordered the stoppage of the works of the Belo Monte hydroelectric plant, at para. According to the document signed by the Attorney-General of the Republic, Roberto Gurgel, and by the Deputy Attorney General of the Republic, Deborah Duprat, the complaint should not be known and, in turn, must be regarded as unfounded. Injunction in the complaint has already been granted by the President of the STF, Minister Ayres Britto. 

The complaint was filed with the final request to be annulled the judgment of the Federal Court of the 1st region which suspended the works, by disrespecting the ruling given by the plenary of the Supreme Court in the trial of the suspension Injunction (SL) No. 125. 

The opinion argues that the SL No. 125 was never submitted to the plenary of the Supreme Court. “There was just a natural decision of the President of the Supreme Court and, when caused by further regimental, had this by harmed on grounds of judgment of merit of public civil action”, he says. To the PGR, would only be possible the management of claim to preserve the constitutionality of Legislative Decree 788 (which authorized Belo Monte) If this was a decision of the plenum of the SUPREME COURT, and not a monocrática decision of the then President of the Court. 

The opinion also emphasizes one aspect of content that makes the claim, bearing in mind the case law of the SUPREME COURT: the lack of material identity between the decision complained and that taken by paradigm. This is because, according to the PGR, the decision rendered in SL 125 had the plan of constitutionality and the judgment respondent dismissed the done exclusively in the light of the Convention 169 of the International Labour Organisation. 

Effectiveness – the authors consider that case overcome the objections as to the appropriate complaint, there is still a question as to the effectiveness of the decision rendered in SL 125, which was the target of further regimental of the Federal Public Ministry, considered to be impaired because of merit decision given in public civil action filed before the Federal Court of Altamira (PA). “As thrown the decision on further regimental, the MPF was led to believe that the Presidency of this Hack no longer considered valid the decision suspending the injunction before granted.” 

Thus, the opinion of the PGR invokes the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, arguing that this principle are two possible consequences: or is not considered more valid the decision rendered in SL 125, or whether to allow the discussion of its fundamentals, such as desired in further regimental before, which is what the opinion is. 

Fundamentals – according to the document, the consultation with indigenous peoples, with regard to legislative and administrative measures that may affect them, is necessary and logical consequence its self-determination, namely, the possibility of tracing for you, free of interference from third parties, their life projects. 

“Logical consequence Also of self-determination of indigenous peoples, strength of a plural society, is that the query is. The query later, when already consummated the fact on which you want to discuss, is mere form without substance, incompatible with expressive freedoms and the management of own destiny that both the Constitution and ILO Convention 169/ensure them. ” 

To the PGR, the prior and informed consultation of indigenous peoples in most international documents that, somehow, concern them and, in addition to being a conventional standard, is also a general principle of international law. The opinion also highlights various devices of the Brazilian Constitution that pointed towards a cooperative State. 

According to the authors, the constitutional requirement of prior hearing of the indigenous communities affected by the project is justified before two goals, both of great importance: on the one hand, give parliamentarians access to data and relevant positions on the topic to be determined, allowing a Congressional decision more well informed and tend to be more correct; on the other, it gives indigenous peoples the chance to access to the contradictory in the political sphere, guaranteeing them the possibility of trying to influence the parliamentary decision making will reach them directly. 

Second opinion on legislative space, there is no actual arms parity between groups interested in conducting major economic developments, such as the exploitation of electricity, and indigenous communities. “Why it is so important to the existence of institutional mechanism to ensure the voice of indigenous peoples in the parliamentary proceedings that concern them,” he says. 

Finally, the opinion throws a question: is it possible to place the public interest only in the realization of the work? “This might be a matter of easy response in the face of a constitutional right of a hegemonic’s consecration. In the case of an emancipatory Constitution, which ensures the rights of minorities, imposing limits of possible decisions materials majorities, the public interest may not be measured in disregard to those groups, “alert.

 Complaint No. 14404

 

Federal prosecutors in Pará

Communication advice

(91) 3299-3299-0148/0177

ascom@prpa.mpf.gov.br

http://twitter.com/MPF_PA

http://www.facebook.com/MPFPara

~

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Opinion reiterates position of MPF by stoppage of Belo Monte

  1. The work continues ~ the argument of the AGU Decree 303 is the only hope to stop the belomonte and other invasive projects on indigenous territories.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: