using the institution's protections to escape accountability
PSOL deputies filed formal request to deny leave and declare mandate abandonment for Bolsonaro's son, citing abuse of parliamentary privileges. Bolsonaro claims persecution and plans political activities in US; deputies argue this violates constitutional rules limiting leave to personal interests only.
- Nine PSOL deputies filed request to deny leave and declare mandate abandonment on March 19
- Bolsonaro requested unpaid leave to move to the United States for political activities
- Brazilian law permits unpaid personal-interest leave for up to 120 days
- If leave exceeds 120 days, substitute Missionário José Olímpio assumes the seat
Brazilian opposition deputies request the Chamber deny Eduardo Bolsonaro's leave to move to the US, arguing he seeks political activity abroad rather than personal reasons, violating administrative morality principles.
Eduardo Bolsonaro, son of former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, announced plans to take a leave of absence from his seat in the Chamber of Deputies to relocate to the United States. His stated purpose was to pursue what he described as efforts to hold human rights violators accountable. On Wednesday, March 19, nine deputies from the leftist PSOL party filed a formal request with the Chamber's leadership asking that his leave be rejected entirely and that he be declared to have abandoned his mandate.
The PSOL deputies—Chico Alencar, Talíria Petrone, Glauber Braga, Tarcísio Motta, Sâmia Bomfim, Luiza Erundina, Ivan Valente, Célia Xakriabá, and Fernanda Melchionna—argued that Bolsonaro was misusing constitutional protections meant for members of Congress. In their formal complaint, they contended that he was not seeking leave for legitimate personal reasons but rather to escape Brazilian jurisdiction and conduct political activities abroad. They characterized this as an abuse of parliamentary privilege and a violation of the principle of administrative morality that should govern public officials.
The distinction matters because Brazilian parliamentary rules allow deputies to take leave for three reasons: health treatment, diplomatic missions, or personal interest. In the first two cases, lawmakers continue receiving their salaries. When a deputy takes leave for personal interest, as Bolsonaro requested, the leave is unpaid. The law permits such absences for up to 120 days; if Bolsonaro's leave extended beyond that period, his substitute, Missionário José Olímpio, would assume the seat.
Bolsonaro had posted on social media that he was being persecuted, and he directed sharp criticism at Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes and the Federal Police, using the term "Gestapo" to describe the latter—a reference to Nazi Germany's secret police. The PSOL deputies seized on these public statements as evidence that his true motivation was political, not personal. They argued that the Chamber's internal rules do not permit leave for the purpose of conducting political activities abroad, and that Bolsonaro's own declarations made clear this was exactly what he intended to do.
The deputies contended that allowing such a leave would constitute a violation of constitutional and regulatory provisions. They pointed out that no constitutional or internal Chamber rule provides for the type of absence Bolsonaro was requesting—one that, by his own account, was driven by political and strategic aims rather than personal necessity. The case now rests with the Chamber's leadership, which must decide whether to grant the leave, deny it, or declare that Bolsonaro has abandoned his seat. The decision will turn on whether the Chamber interprets his stated intentions as falling within the bounds of "personal interest" or as crossing into prohibited political activity conducted from abroad.
Citações Notáveis
The deputy clearly abuses constitutional protections by using parliamentary leave not for personal matters but to flee Brazilian jurisdiction and conduct political activities abroad, constituting abandonment of mandate— PSOL deputies in formal complaint
Bolsonaro stated he is being persecuted and criticized Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes and the Federal Police as 'Gestapo'— Eduardo Bolsonaro, in social media posts
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does it matter whether Bolsonaro calls this personal interest versus political activity? Isn't taking leave just taking leave?
Because the rules exist to prevent exactly this—a deputy using the institution's protections to escape accountability while still claiming the seat. If you can take unpaid leave to do political work abroad, the mandate becomes a shield, not a responsibility.
But he's not asking to keep his salary. He's willing to go unpaid for up to 120 days. Doesn't that show good faith?
That's the argument his side would make. But the PSOL deputies are saying the money isn't the point. The point is whether a Brazilian legislator should be allowed to use his position as cover while conducting political operations in another country. The leave rules assume you're stepping back from public life temporarily, not relocating your political work elsewhere.
What happens if the Chamber denies him?
He could challenge it legally, or he could resign. But if they declare abandonment of mandate, he loses the seat immediately and his substitute takes over. That's the nuclear option the PSOL is asking for.
And if they grant it?
Then he has 120 days unpaid. After that, either he returns or his substitute assumes the seat anyway. But granting it would essentially say the Chamber is comfortable with deputies conducting foreign political activity on leave. That sets a precedent.
Does Bolsonaro have allies in the Chamber who might defend him?
Almost certainly. His party, the PL, has significant numbers. But this isn't just about party loyalty—it's about whether other deputies want to establish that this kind of thing is acceptable. That's a harder sell.