The Workers’ Party (PT) bench in the Chamber of Deputies announced on Thursday, July 9, 2026, that it will file a writ of mandamus with the Supreme Federal Court (STF). The legal action aims to overturn a decision by the Chamber’s Board of Directors, which previously ordered the loss of the federal mandate held by Representative Paulão (PT-AL). The board’s decision followed a favorable opinion from the parliamentary corregidor, Representative Diego Coronel (Republicanos-BA).
Legal Challenge Against Mandate Loss
The PT bench formally stated its “inconformity” regarding the removal of Representative Paulão from office. In a document signed by the party’s bench leader, Representative Pedro Uczai (PT-SC), and dozens of other party members, the group described the judicial process that triggered the cassation as a measure “engendrated in favor of the political and economic elites” of Alagoas, originating within the state’s Regional Electoral Court.
The party intends to use the upcoming STF filing to restore the representative’s seat. According to the announcement, the bench anticipates that the Supreme Court will adopt an understanding similar to one previously expressed by Justice Dias Toffoli. During a session at the Superior Electoral Court (TSE), Toffoli voted in favor of maintaining Paulão’s mandate.
Implications and Judicial Timeline
The resolution of this case is expected to remain in flux until the judiciary returns from its recess in August. The PT bench remains confident that the mandate will be restored, emphasizing that the representative’s continued presence in the Chamber is “indispensable to Brazilian social movements and the people of Alagoas.”
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is the PT bench appealing to the STF?
The bench is filing a writ of mandamus to challenge the Chamber of Deputies’ Board of Directors, which acted to strip Representative Paulão of his mandate following a recommendation by Representative Diego Coronel.
What is the basis for the PT’s expectation of success?
The party points to a previous vote by Justice Dias Toffoli at the Superior Electoral Court, which supported the maintenance of Paulão’s mandate, and hopes the Supreme Court will adopt this same view when the case is reviewed in August.
How does the PT characterize the loss of the mandate?
The party’s official statement claims the judicial decision was “engendrated in favor of the political and economic elites” of Alagoas and maintains that Paulão’s role is essential for social movements and the Alagoan population.
How do you assess the potential impact of this case on the current legislative balance in the Chamber of Deputies?
Keep reading