“We will conduct dialogue and continue to work to ensure that, as today, we have legal certainty and also respect the rights of indigenous peoples,” Lula said in a message published on the social network X (formerly Twitter).
The decision was announced after the President’s meeting with Ministers Sonia Guajajara (Indigenous Peoples), Alexandre Padilha (Institutional Relations), Jorge Messias (Attorney General of the Union) and the Special Secretary for Legal Affairs of the Civil House, Wellington César Lima.
In this regard, Guajajara explained on a digital platform that the result was a victory for the indigenous peoples who “carried out a major mobilization against the issue and ensured respect for the Constitution, which already provides for specific rules for the delimitation of indigenous territories.” .”
According to Padilha, everything deemed unconstitutional was vetoed and the decision must be published in the Official Journal of the Union.
However, Lula approved parts of the controversial proposal, which was adopted by the National Congress on September 28 and sets the rules for demarcating the border.
If the bill passes the House, lawmakers can uphold or override the president’s veto. In the event of abolition, the previously approved text comes into force.
The legal theory advocated by the rural sector is that jurisdiction over a homeland can only occur upon proof that the indigenous people were in the required space on October 5, 1988, the date of the promulgation of the Constitution.
Despite claims that the milestone contradicts Magna Carta, the constituency criterion was approved by Congress, although the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional by a vote of nine to two.
The lawsuit that motivated the discussion revolves around the dispute over the ownership of the indigenous land of Ibirama in the southern state of Santa Catarina.
The area is inhabited by the Xokleng, Kaingang and Guarani peoples and the ownership of part of the area is being questioned by the Territorial Department’s prosecution.
Experts criticize the transition thesis because it would justify and legalize invasions and violence against indigenous peoples to take possession of land before this date.
For Aboriginal leaders, the framework excludes the historical and cultural reality of indigenous peoples and violates international treaties signed by Brazil, such as the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Peoples and Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization.
ode/ocs