Deputy Paulinho da Força (Solidarity-SP), rapporteur of the Criminal Dosimetry Law — a regulation that reduces sentences for crimes against Democratic Rule of Law —, met this Tuesday (12th) with STF Justice Alexandre de Moraes. After the meeting, the congressman said he was "very optimistic that the Supreme Court will maintain the project's constitutionality and people will be released," according to O Globo. ✓
Press quotes (1)
"Estou muito otimista que o Supremo vai manter a constitucionalidade do projeto e as pessoas serão soltas"
Law 15.402/2026, enacted on May 8th by Senate President Davi Alcolumbre, creates two specific mechanisms: "mandatory formal concurrence" for crimes in the same context (applying only one increased sentence, not the sum of all) and sentence reduction of one-third to two-thirds when committed "in crowd context," except for financiers or leaders. ✓
Press quotes (2)
"Art. 359-M-A. Quando os delitos deste Capítulo estão inseridos no mesmo contexto, a pena deverá ser aplicada, ainda que existente desígnio autônomo, na forma do concurso formal próprio de que trata a primeira parte do art. 70"
"Art. 359-M-B. Quando os crimes previstos neste capítulo forem praticados em contexto de multidão, a pena será reduzida de um terço a dois terços, desde que o agente não tenha praticado ato de financiamento ou exercido papel de liderança"
Moraes had completely suspended the law's application on May 9th "until appreciation and judgment of ADIs 7.966 and 7.967 by the plenary" of the STF, according to a judicial decision obtained by Poder360. The direct unconstitutionality actions were filed by the Brazilian Press Association and the PSOL-Rede federation. ✓
Press quotes (1)
"SUSPENDO A APLICAÇÃO DA LEI 15.402/2026 NA PRESENTE EXECUÇÃO PENAL até apreciação e julgamento das ADIs 7.966 e 7.967 pelo PLENÁRIO desta SUPREMA CORTE"
According to Paulinho da Força on his social media, Moraes "guaranteed that, as soon as the institutions respond, he will request agenda at the Supreme Court. The expectation is that the judgment will happen in the last week of May". The justice had given a five-day deadline for Congress and the Presidency to comment on the ADIs. ✓
Press quotes (1)
"O ministro Alexandre de Moraes me garantiu que, assim que as instituições responderem, ele pedirá pauta no Supremo. A expectativa é que o julgamento aconteça na última semana de maio"
The meeting generated criticism from Senator Flávio Bolsonaro, who told Globo he found "strange" the "proximity between Moraes and the rapporteur in the Chamber," claiming that "it seems he received directly from him, asking what could or could not be in that text". Paulinho responded that "the text was constructed broadly, hearing all caucuses". ✓
Press quotes (2)
"parece que ele recebia diretamente dele, perguntando o que poderia ou não estar nesse texto da dosimetria"
"o texto foi construído de forma ampla, ouvindo todas as bancadas do Congresso Nacional"
Meeting between Paulinho da Força and Moraes occurred on May 12, 2026
Moraes suspended the Criminal Dosimetry Law application on May 9
Covered by only some sources, or where the accounts diverge.
Covered by only some sources (2)
Criminal Dosimetry Law directly benefits Jair Bolsonaro
Conflicting versions (1)
Term used for the encounter - 'meeting' vs 'conversation'
-
What was the specific content of the conversation between Moraes and Paulinho da Força beyond the timeline?
Why it's still unknown: Sources do not report substantive details of the meeting beyond the judgment expectation
-
How have other STF justices positioned themselves on the Criminal Dosimetry Law?
Why it's still unknown: Press mentions 'backstage expectations' but does not name justices or specific positions
-
What is the complete procedural history of PL 2162/2023 in committees?
Why it's still unknown: FactCards identify authorship (Marcelo Crivella) and final result but do not detail intermediate procedures
-
Are there specific constitutional precedents from STF on legislative criminal dosimetry?
Why it's still unknown: FactCards provide general separation of powers doctrine but not specific jurisprudence on dosimetry