OS LIMITES CONSTITUCIONAIS DA IMUNIDADE MATERIAL DIANTE DOS PRONUNCIAMENTOS OFENSIVOS DOS PARLAMENTARES À COMUNIDADE LGBTI+ NO CONGRESSO NACIONAL

Abstract

This article addresses specifically material immunity rules that assure freedom of speech to parliamentarians while exercising their mandates. The prevailing jurisprudence in the Supreme Federal Court establishes that a parliamentarian's statement pronounced inside the parliament is not subject to any kind of legal liability, due to this material prerogative. However, there are scholars that suggest adding the observance of fundamental rights as a criteria to apply the material immunity. In 2023, plenty of offensive discourses against LGBTI+ groups were observed in the national parliament, thus, considering the previous rulings of our Supreme Federal Court, those discourses would be protected under parliamentary immunity rules. Therefore, this work proposes to find points to substantiate the inclusion of a new boundary to the extension of this material prerogative. For this purpose, the inductive method is used, starting from individual cases, based on theoretical texts and judicial decisions, in order to develop a general hypothesis. In the end, the conclusion reached is that when a parliamentary statement in pronounced while in exercise of their mandate, the rule must be the inviolability. However, statements that can be characterized as hate speech must be exempted to avoid the distortion of this prerogative to mask antidemocratic practices.