The Municipality of Pato Branco approved, by ten votes to one, the rejection of the Integral Veto of the Executive about Bill No. de Pato Branco, proposed by the Justice and Writing Commission (CJR), through Legislative Decree nº 2, of 2022. The vote took place at the ordinary session on Monday (4) and only councilman Joecir Bernardi (PSD) voted against rejecting the veto. The other parliamentarians, including the president of the House of Laws, and councilor Claudemir Zanco (PL), voted in favor of the Commission’s decree.

In the opinion of the CJR, the rapporteur councilor Eduardo Albani Dala Costa (MDB) highlighted that “through a message addressed to the House of Laws, the Executive fully vetoed Bill 163/2021. In its reasons for the veto, the Executive informs that despite the importance of the public interest contained in the core of the aforementioned PL, there are vices of unconstitutionality and legislative technique present in the matter that prevent the mayoral sanction. The Municipal Executive pointed out four reasons to veto the bill on-screen”.

Vacatio legis is not present

According to the document, the first reason is the “absence of vacatio legis, invoking art. 1 of Decree-Law nº4.657/1942 – Law of Introduction to the Rules of Brazilian Law, which determines the entry into force of the laws 45 days after they are officially published unless otherwise stated. It argues that with the approval of the bill in question, which provides for the entry into force of the law on the date of its publication, the vehicles of the Municipality must be properly identified with the new model included in the bill when it enters into force. That vehicle intended for the provision of public services are duly identified, and that adjustment without legislative vacancy makes it impossible for the municipality to immediately comply with the normative act”.

Effectiveness as mayor

The second reason was given by the rapporteur, pointed out by the Executive, is the “mayor’s competence for the administration of the material goods of the Municipal Executive. Arguing based on the opinion of the City Council’s Legal Prosecutor’s Office that cites art. 66 of the Municipal Organic Law, which determines that the Mayor is responsible for the administration of municipal assets, respecting the competence of the Chamber, regarding those used in its services. It also argues that art. 3 of the bill restricts important data that they must contain, such as the fleet number and the symbols and agreements to which the vehicles are linked, directly interfering with how the municipal administration identifies its vehicles for control and organization purposes, defying the provisions in art. 66 of the Municipal Organic Law.

Interference by the state

The third reason revealed by the rapporteur, “is the interference of the Public Power in private goods. He argues that art. 4 of the Bill provides for the mandatory identification with a symbol of the Municipality on vehicles linked to companies that provide services to the Public Administration. It states that it is not coherent to oblige individuals who provide services to the Municipality to plot their vehicles, since companies do not provide services exclusively to the municipality, and may even provide services to other public entities. It also points out that forcing service providers to use the identification of the municipality, will certainly be generating costs to the public treasury, considering that the Municipality will have to bear the plotting expenses, or require the provider to do so, generating additional costs to the contract”.

Disobedience to the laws of the land

The fourth reason was given by the Executive for vetoing the bill, according to the rapporteur, “is the non-compliance with the provisions of Complementary Law No. 101 of May 2000. It states in its veto reasons that with the approval of the project in question it will generate expenses of a continuous nature, which, for that purpose, should be accompanied by the respective financial impact and the indication of the source of funds, by Articles 16 and 17 of Complementary Law No. 101/2000. Alleging a vice of legislative technique and unconstitutionality, the Municipal Mayor fully vetoed Bill 163/2021 “.

Vote of the Rapporteur

In the opinion, the rapporteur explained that “on the merits, it appears that by fully vetoing the Bill No. . I understand that the grounds that led the Executive to veto the bill are wrong. In his reasons for the veto, the mayor, on several occasions, states that the municipal fleet is already properly identified, which makes it easier to apply the law because, with the regulation of the same, he will be able to adjust the law with the addition of data that in the law was not contemplated. On the other hand, as already mentioned, if the Municipal Executive or the councilors want to, they may be presenting projects that can, from their perspective, improve the bill in question. Given all the above,

The opinion also points out that “the members of the Justice and Writing Committee (CJR), as provided for in item I of article 51 of the Internal Regulations, in an extraordinary meeting held on June 27, 2022, issued an opinion against the full veto of the Project of Law No. 163//2021″, following the vote of the rapporteur. The Committee on Justice and Writing in this legislative year comprises councilors Romulo Faggion – president (União), Lindomar Brandão (PP), Marcos Junior Marini (Podemos) and Maria Cristina de Oliveira Rodrigues Hamera (PV), in addition to the rapporteur of the matter, Eduardo Albani Dala Costa (MDB).