São Paulo drops court case over Casares impeachment vote rules | OneFootball

São Paulo has formally withdrawn from the São Paulo court the lawsuit that discussed the rules adopted in the impeachment vote of former president Júlio Casares.

With this, the possibility of judicial review of the election, held on January 16, loses strength.

At the time, an injunction obtained by members and councilors maintained a lower quorum and allowed online voting, decisive factors in reaching the 188 votes that removed Casares. Without this provisional decision, more than 190 would have been needed.

After the result, Harry Massis Júnior assumed the presidency.

The club's appeal against the injunction was still awaiting a final judgment.

The decision is another campaign promise fulfilled by Massis. The current tricolor leader announced to allies, as soon as he took power, that he would withdraw legal actions filed by São Paulo itself against the impeachment process, in addition to positioning the club as a victim in investigations conducted by the Civil Police and the State Public Prosecutor's Office.

THE CASE

Judge Mônica Rodrigues Doas de Carvalho, from the 1st Chamber of Private Law of the São Paulo Court of Justice, rejected at the beginning of January the appeal filed by São Paulo against a previous favorable decision that reestablished the minimum quorum for voting on Casares' impeachment, in addition to establishing the hybrid model between in-person and virtual for the election.

In the magistrate's understanding, there are no reasons for changing what was previously determined.

“Initially, although the issue of minimum quorum was discussed, I verify that the accepted decision already admitted that the meeting should observe for its start the minimum presence defended by the appellant. I emphasize that there was no determination on the deliberation quorum, but only on the minimum presence for the opening of the meeting, so it is not appropriate to address the topic at this time. Furthermore, with due respect, I did not see which regulatory provision prohibits the participation of councilors by electronic means,” says a section of the decision.

An injunction issued by Judge Luciane Cristina Silva Tavares, from the 3rd Civil Court of Butantã, at the beginning of the week, had changed the ‘rule’ for impeachment, annulling the decision of the president of the body, Olten Ayres de Abreu, and reverting the rule to open the process of removing Casares with only 171 favorable votes, in addition to allowing the extraordinary meeting to be held in a hybrid manner.

The action in court was filed by lawyer Amanda Nunes and was brought by councilors Caio Forjaz, Daniel Dinis Fonseca, Fabio Machado, José Medicis, José Carlos Ferreira Alves, Kalef João Francisco Neto, Marcelo Portugal Gouvêa, Miguel de Sousa, and Waldo Jose Valim Braga.

The assessment is that several councilors with a favorable vote for Casares' removal could not be present at the Friday meeting because they were traveling, on vacation.

The judge responsible for the decision also sees no conflict between articles 58 and 112 of São Paulo's Social Statute. She says that it is necessary to have a 75% quorum (191 councilors) for the meeting to be held, but only two-thirds of votes in favor of impeachment for Casares to be removed from the presidency.

“Observing both statutory provisions, it is clear that art. 58, §2º establishes the quorum for voting, that is, the minimum number of councilors present, while art. 112 provides for the number of votes necessary for the removal of the President. Thus, the second notice is correct, which provides for a minimum quorum of 75% of the Council members for the Meeting that aims to deliberate on the removal of the President of the Board,” writes the judge in her ruling.

The previous week, Abreu had rejected the request filed by the opposition for the vote to be held in a hybrid manner. That is, in person and also virtually, on the grounds of increasing the participation of body members and reducing risks related to the external environment and public clamor.

In the meeting call notice, Abreu argues that the in-person format ensures “the maximum irrefutability of the secret vote, protecting the autonomy of the voting councilor.”

Furthermore, he justifies that given the importance of the subject, in-person voting “is essential for legal security and the unquestionable legitimacy of the final decision.”

But it was not the only measure taken by Abreu, let's say, more lenient to Casares. Earlier, he gave a favorable opinion to a request made by Casares himself, to change the necessary quorum of votes for the opening of the impeachment.

In a ruling, the president of the Council recognized the existence of a statutory controversy, as different items of the document provide for different percentages for the approval of removal.

But, according to him, the understanding is that, given the seriousness of the accusations that led to the vote, the interpretation most favorable to the accused prevails.

With the change, the minimum number of favorable votes for impeachment had risen from 171 to 191, that is, 75% of the Council.

This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇧🇷 here.