Congress's constitutional work cannot be shaken by executive shortcuts
Em setembro de 2021, o presidente do Senado brasileiro, Rodrigo Pacheco, devolveu ao Executivo uma medida provisória que alterava o Marco Civil da Internet, recusando-se a permitir que o Palácio do Planalto reescrevesse, por atalho, as regras do discurso digital em período eleitoral. O gesto foi mais do que procedimental: foi uma afirmação de que o poder de legislar sobre direitos fundamentais pertence ao Congresso, e que a urgência invocada pelo Executivo não justificava contornar esse princípio. Em tempos em que a fronteira entre regulação digital e disputa política se torna cada vez mais tênue, Pacheco escolheu defender a integridade institucional como condição para qualquer debate legítimo sobre o tema.
- Uma medida provisória do governo Bolsonaro restringiu as regras de remoção de conteúdo nas redes sociais, tocando diretamente na forma como o discurso político circularia nas eleições que se aproximavam.
- Pacheco não apenas discordou da medida — ele a devolveu formalmente, argumentando que sua simples existência já abalava a capacidade constitucional do Congresso de legislar.
- A tensão era agravada pelo fato de o Senado já ter aprovado seu próprio projeto sobre o mesmo tema, que aguardava votação na Câmara, tornando as duas iniciativas incompatíveis.
- Ao exercer o poder de devolução, Pacheco estabeleceu um precedente claro: o Executivo não pode usar medidas provisórias para remodelar direitos digitais durante ciclos eleitorais sensíveis.
- O episódio cristalizou o embate mais amplo entre os dois poderes sobre quem tem a palavra final na regulação da internet no Brasil.
Em setembro de 2021, Rodrigo Pacheco, presidente do Senado, tornou oficial uma decisão que já havia comunicado ao Palácio do Planalto: a devolução de uma medida provisória editada pelo governo Bolsonaro que alterava o Marco Civil da Internet, endurecendo as condições para remoção de conteúdo em plataformas digitais.
A justificativa de Pacheco foi constitucional e direta. A medida, argumentou ele, criava insegurança jurídica e representava um "abalo" às funções legislativas do Congresso. Como presidente da Mesa, ele detinha a prerrogativa de devolver medidas provisórias que considerasse inconstitucionais — e foi exatamente isso que fez.
O contexto tornava a decisão ainda mais carregada. O Senado já havia aprovado seu próprio projeto de lei sobre regulação digital, que tramitava na Câmara dos Deputados. As duas iniciativas eram incompatíveis, e Pacheco deixou claro que o caminho correto passava pelo processo legislativo, não por um instrumento executivo de caráter emergencial.
Havia também uma preocupação eleitoral explícita. Com o Brasil se aproximando de um ciclo eleitoral, as regras sobre o que pode ou não ser removido das redes sociais deixavam de ser questão técnica para se tornar matéria de disputa política concreta. Para Pacheco, usar uma medida provisória para redefinir esse terreno era constitucionalmente inadequado e institucionalmente perigoso.
A devolução enviou um recado inequívoco: se o Executivo quisesse alterar as regras do ambiente digital brasileiro, teria de fazê-lo com o Congresso — não à sua revelia.
On a September afternoon in 2021, Rodrigo Pacheco, the president of Brazil's Senate, stood before his chamber and announced he was sending back a provisional measure that had come from the executive branch. The measure, issued under President Jair Bolsonaro, had altered the Marco Civil da Internet—the country's foundational law governing digital rights—and in doing so had tightened the rules around when content could be removed from social media platforms. Pacheco's decision to reject it was formal and deliberate. He had already notified the Planalto Palace, the seat of presidential power, and now he was making it official in the chamber itself.
The reason Pacheco gave was rooted in constitutional principle. The provisional measure, he argued, created legal uncertainty. More than that, it represented what he called an "abalo"—a shaking or destabilization—of Congress's ability to do its constitutional work. This was not a casual objection. As president of the Congressional leadership, Pacheco held the power to return a provisional measure and nullify its effects when he believed it violated the constitution. He was exercising that power now.
The timing mattered. The Senate had already passed its own bill on the same subject, a piece of legislation that was now waiting for a vote in the Chamber of Deputies. Pacheco pointed to this as evidence that Congress was already engaged in the proper work of legislating on digital rights—work that the executive's provisional measure was now interfering with. The two pieces of legislation were not compatible. One had to give way.
There was another dimension to Pacheco's concern, one he made explicit in his statement: the provisional measure directly affected electoral processes. Brazil was moving toward elections, and rules governing what could and could not be removed from social media platforms were not abstract matters of digital policy. They touched on how political speech would be regulated, what voters would see, how campaigns would unfold. For Pacheco, this made the constitutional violation even more serious. A provisional measure—a tool meant for urgent, temporary situations—was not the appropriate instrument for reshaping the digital landscape during an election cycle.
In the formal language of his decision, Pacheco wrote that the mere fact of the provisional measure being in circulation constituted a blow to Congress's constitutional duties. The measure itself, simply by existing and being debated, was already doing damage to the institution's ability to legislate. This was a strong statement about the limits of executive power and the primacy of the legislative branch in matters of broad social consequence.
The return of the measure was a significant moment in the ongoing tension between Brazil's executive and legislative branches over digital regulation. It established that Congress would not simply accept executive rewriting of the Marco Civil, especially not through the shortcut of a provisional measure, and especially not when the legislature was already working on its own solution. Pacheco's decision sent a message: if the executive wanted to change the rules of digital speech and content moderation, it would have to work through Congress, not around it.
Citações Notáveis
The mere circulation of this provisional measure constitutes a blow to Congress's constitutional duties— Rodrigo Pacheco, in his formal decision
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did Pacheco have the power to simply return this measure? Isn't that unusual?
He had it because he's president of the Congressional leadership—the Mesa do Congresso. When a provisional measure raises constitutional red flags, that office can send it back and cancel its effects. It's a check on executive power, but it's rarely used this way.
So this was a big deal, then. A public rejection.
Very much so. He didn't just quietly let it die. He announced it in the chamber itself, made it a statement. That signals Congress was unified against it.
What was actually in the measure that bothered him so much?
It changed how content could be removed from social media. Made it harder. But the real problem for Pacheco was that Congress was already working on its own bill on the same topic. The Senate had passed it. The executive was trying to bypass that process.
And the election angle—why did that matter?
Because rules about what stays up and what comes down on social media directly shape what voters see during a campaign. You're not just making a technical rule; you're potentially affecting electoral speech. That's too important to handle through a provisional measure.
So what happens now? Does the measure just disappear?
Its effects are nullified. The Senate bill remains in play, waiting for the Chamber to vote. Congress gets to do the legislating, not the executive.