In the decision, she stated that the CPI can “invite” the same state bodies to voluntarily attend the meeting of the commission, “which will be appointed by mutual agreement.”
The action was presented to the Supreme Soviet by a group of about 20 governors shortly after the CPI approved the convening of nine heads of state on May 26.
For Rosa, it has been demonstrated that the challenge is “a violation of the fundamental tenets of separation of powers and federalism.”
In her order, the minister drew a parallel with the fact that the president of the republic cannot be summoned to testify in the CPI. “This constitutional prerogative of the President of the Republic – exemption from the obligation to testify before parliamentary committees – as far as I understand, also extends to state governors who have the status of chief executives within their respective federal units,” he said.
In her opinion, the president and governors “are not responsible for political and administrative offenses if they do not respond to requests for clarification from the legislature, precisely because any challenge made in these conditions by parliament, without any legal basis, would mean a violation of the institutional autonomy of the head of the executive branch. “
Rose also argued that the CPI could not hold governors accountable for using the amounts transferred by the Union to the states to combat the pandemic, because that is the prerogative of the Federal Accounts Chamber (TCU) and not Congress.
“So it turns out that state governors are accountable to the local Legislature (government or state accounts) or the Federal Audit Office (federal resources), not to the National Congress,” he wrote.
