Brasilia, (EFE).- The plenary session of the Brazilian Senate approved with “urgency” the central text of a project that restricts the land rights of indigenous peoples, contradicting a Supreme Court ruling made last week in favor of the indigenous people.
The proposal had been approved in a committee a few hours earlier and was presented to the Senate with “urgency” by the most conservative factions.
That they rejected the Supreme Court decision based on its content and also with the argument that the judiciary had “usurped” the powers of the legislature.
The project gives the “temporary framework” the force of law.
A thesis that the Supreme Court rejected last Thursday with a majority of nine yes votes and two no votes
This limits the rights of the indigenous population to the land they occupied on October 5, 1988, when the current Brazilian Constitution was promulgated.
The strength of the conservatives
The draft law was approved in the plenary session with 43 yes votes and 21 no votes.
A result that shows the strength that conservatism still has in Parliament against the government of the progressive Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who opposes the “temporary framework”.
Over the last week, these far-right and far-right groups have pushed back against Supreme Court decisions.
Debates have begun over the decriminalization of abortion up to 12 weeks and the possible release of marijuana for “recreational purposes” with certain restrictions.
The rapporteur of the “time frame” project, Marcos Rogério Brito, rejected this Wednesday the pressure from the ruling party.
From this it was claimed that this would be the case even if it was approved by the entire Senate.
The new indigenous land provision will be reported to the Supreme Court and declared unconstitutional.
The leader of the pro-government group in the Senate, Randolfe Rodrigues, also guaranteed that the project “will be rejected by President Lula.”
This would simply send the text back to the legislative chambers for further consideration.
However, Brito did not accept these arguments.
“The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is clear in the Constitution, but it is as clear as the jurisdiction of the legislature,” said the rapporteur, who rejected that the project represented a “challenge” to the court or that it would lead to a “challenge” Possible institutional conflict could lead to the court. .
For the project
Proponents of the project, which is promoted by right-wing extremist groups that defend the interests of powerful businessmen in the countryside.
Brito assured that he would provide “legal certainty” to those settlers who have been occupying lands claimed by the indigenous population for decades, although they do so under questionable legality. The Supreme Court determines compensation while the Senate decides
The Supreme Court itself recognized that many of these people paid regional or local governments for these lands “in good faith.”
That they sold it under the protection of numerous loopholes that existed on the subject before the 1988 Constitution.
Forms of compensation
For these cases, the Supreme Court discussed forms of compensation this Wednesday, but only for cases in which the settlers did not occupy the land by force and acquired it thanks to the loopholes in the law that exist in this matter.
The justices ruled unanimously that farmers with “valid” property rights on land that was not already considered indigenous at the time of purchase by the state must receive “fair and prior” compensation from authorities if they are evicted.
In addition, they opened up the possibility that, in the event of “absolute impossibility,” the land could be reintegrated to the indigenous peoples.
You may be offered other settlement areas.
The Supreme Court ruling against the “timeframe” was welcomed by the UN human rights office.
The view was that this thesis would have had “extremely serious” consequences for indigenous communities and would perpetuate the historical injustices suffered by these peoples.