How each senator voted in the Senate’s CCJ

The PEC of the Shielding was unanimously rejected in the Senate’s CCJ; see the senators who voted. The voting for rejection was unanimous. After being approved in the Chamber, the population took to the streets on Sunday to demonstrate dissatisfaction with the issue. The Constitution and Justice Committee (CCJ) of the Senate voted to shelve the PEC of the Shielding on Wednesday. In a nominal vote, all senators voted to reject the Constitutional Amendment Proposal. The text aimed to recover part of the model prior to 2001, when Legislative approval was required for the opening of processes against deputies and senators. The Senate’s CCJ voted in favor of the PEC against the Shielding Photo: Geraldo Magela/Senate Agency. In a nominal vote, all senators voted to reject the Constitutional Amendment Proposal (PEC), which sought to increase judicial protection for deputies and senators by expanding political control over the prior authorization required for the opening of criminal actions. By Senate internal rules, an appeal to bring the proposal for discussion in the main House Chamber could only be filed if the CCJ vote was not unanimous. See how the senators present in the Senate’s CCJ voted. The PEC had been approved by the Chamber of Deputies last week. Over the past few days, the text was the subject of popular demonstrations and internal pressures in the Senate against the advancement of the proposal. Senate’s CCJ rejects and buries the PEC of the Shielding. Faced with the negative repercussions, the CCJ president adopted a faster pace and decided to put the PEC to a vote just one week after receiving the text. Alencar chose Senator Alessandro Vieira (MDB-SE) as the rapporteur, who also spoke out against the proposal. Senate’s CCJ: rapporteur votes to reject the PEC of the Shielding. Understand the changes proposed by the PEC. Criminal process opening. The text aimed to recover part of the model prior to 2001, when Legislative approval was required for the opening of processes against deputies and senators. Precautionary measures. In the proposal, parliamentarians could only be subject to precautionary measures issued by the Supreme Court, not by lower instances of the Judiciary. Privileged Forum. The PEC expanded the privileged forum and also included the presidents of parties with representation in the National Congress. With this, they would be judged directly by the Supreme Court (STF), as is already the case with the President and Vice President of the Republic, Supreme Court Justices, Attorney General, deputies, and senators. Senator Otto Alencar (PSD-BA) chairs the Senate’s CCJ on September 24, 2025 Photo: Geraldo Magela/Senate Agency. Manifestations and entities. Demonstrators take to the streets across the country against the Shielding PEC. The PEC of the Shielding was the target of protests in all 27 Brazilian capitals last Sunday. In São Paulo, according to the estimate of the Cebrap Political Debate Monitor team, 42,400 people participated in the demonstration on Paulista Avenue. In Rio de Janeiro, the estimate is that, at the peak of the demonstration, over 41,000 people were present at Copacabana Beach. Transparency entities also criticized the proposal. The Pact for Democracy, a coalition of more than 200 organizations, expressed opposition to the so-called Amnesty PL, stating that the PEC ‘weakens the mechanisms of accountability for authorities.’ The Public Leadership Center, Transparency Brazil, Electoral Transparency Brazil, and the NGO Fiquem Sabendo classified the proposal as ‘a serious setback for Brazilian democracy.’ ‘The proposal, which has the potential to bury investigations into deviations in the Secret Budget and the attacks of January 8, creates obstacles to holding authorities accountable. The concrete effect will be an increase in impunity, the weakening of the system of checks and balances, the shielding of parliamentarians and party leaders against the law, weakening Brazilians’ belief in democracy,’ says a note signed by the entities and eight other organizations. The Paraná Bar Association sent an opinion to the Senate stating that the proposal is unconstitutional on several fronts. According to the institution, the text has defects from the Chamber’s vote and formal defects, such as the violation of the separation of powers.