The opposition had requested the adoption of the hybrid model, with electronic voting, under the argument of expanding the participation of councilors and reducing risks related to the external environment and popular outcry. The request, however, was rejected, with the justification that external pressure cannot override the club’s statutory rules and institutional integrity.
In the order dealing with the quorum, Olten recognizes the existence of a statutory controversy, as different provisions provide for different percentages for approval of dismissal. Even so, the President of the Council understood that, given the seriousness of the accusations — which involve alleged acts contrary to the Bylaws and reckless management — the more rigorous requirement, of 75% of the votes, provided for in specific articles of the Bylaws and Internal Regulations, must prevail.
In the decision, Olten also invokes principles of sanctioning law, such as the in doubt for the accusedarguing that, in case of normative doubt, the interpretation most favorable to the accused must prevail. For him, the higher qualified quorum offers greater legal protection and gives reinforced legitimacy to a possible removal decision.
With the two orders, the conduct of the impeachment process now follows exactly the terms defended by Julio Casares’ defense: an exclusively in-person meeting and the need for support from at least 75% of the councilors to approve the dismissal. The position of the President of the Council should further intensify the internal political dispute in São Paulo, at a time of strong tension between the situation and the opposition.
