In October 2016, the Federal Supreme Court recognized the existence of general repercussion of the constitutional issue, through an order of the then reporting minister and now president of the Court, Luiz Fux, deciding that: “under the terms of article 1.035, § 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure/2015, combined with article 323 of the RISTF, I express myself for the existence of general repercussion of the constitutional issue raised.”
The recognition of the repercussion came from a questioning of the Public Ministry of Rio Grande do Sul on the decision of the Appeal Panel of Special Criminal Courts in the state that considered the conduct of gaming exploitation atypical, disregarding the practice as a criminal misdemeanor under the argument that the grounds on which the ban was based are not consistent with current constitutional principles.
The rapporteur and current President of the STF highlighted that all the Criminal Appeals Panels of the Court of Justice of the State of Rio Grande do Sul had been understanding the demand in the same sense, making the practice of gaming in Rio Grande do Sul not considered a criminal misdemeanor. “Thus, I understand as undeniable the relevance of the theme to demand the recognition of its general repercussion,” asserted Luiz Fux at the time.
RE 966,177 had been scheduled for April this year, but with a full agenda, including issues related to COVID-19 and the reopening or not of temples and churches during the pandemic, the session dragged in such a way that President Luiz Fux withdrew the theme of the agenda, once again postponing what was expected to be the release of the gaming sector in Brazil.
GMB has several times addressed the issue of "arm wrestling" between the powers of the Republic regarding the legalization of gaming in Brazil, especially between the Senate and the Chamber, where different projects are in progress and the one that votes first has priority of being “the child's father”. For now, the Chamber of Deputies is ahead.
It remains to be seen how long the discussions will last for the replacement of Bill 442/91, which had its urgency approved in Plenary last Thursday (16). As the resumption of work in the Legislative will take place in February, discussions may be prolonged, having in view of the fact that in 2022 Brazil will have elections and Parliament often works on the electoral agenda.
If that happens, the Judiciary may once again dispute with the Chamber the possibility of assuming the paternity of gaming in Brazil.
The only thing that is not expected is the same protagonism from the Executive, since the head of the Planalto Palace has already demonstrated, to cheer his supporters, that he does not admit the legalization of gaming in Brazil. It remains to be seen whether this posture is true or just stage play.
Source: GMB
