Former first lady claimed to have been a victim of slander and defamation, but minister considered that PSOL deputy’s statement is protected by parliamentary immunity

Former first lady Michelle Bolsonaro appealed this Tuesday, 29, against the denial of the criminal complaint presented to the Federal Supreme Court (STF) against congresswoman Erika Hilton (PSOL-SP). Michelle claimed to have been the target of slander and defamation by the parliamentarian, who accused her of “disappearing” with another family’s dog.

Minister Luiz Fux followed, last week, the understanding of the Attorney General’s Office (PGR) for the rejection of the criminal complaint, understanding that Erika’s speeches are protected by parliamentary immunity.

In March of this year, Michelle received the title of honorary citizen of São Paulo, granted by Mayor Ricardo Nunes (MDB). After the tribute, Erika posted on social media: “We can’t even pay tribute to Michelle Bolsonaro for never disappearing with another family’s dog because she literally already did that.”

The deputy was referring to an episode from 2020, when a dog was found in the back of the Palácio do Planalto by employees of the Presidency, then occupied by Jair Bolsonaro (PL).

At the time, Michelle expressed interest in taking care of the animal and even named him Augusto Bolsonaro. The former first lady even created an Instagram profile for “Augusto”, but it was later discovered that the dog was called Zeus and had an owner, to whom the animal was returned.

In the action, Michelle’s defense stated that the situation was “widely clarified”, with the animal’s owner expressing gratitude for the Bolsonaro family’s care, and accused the deputy of using the case to insinuate bad faith.

Fux, however, argued that Erika Hilton’s publication had a political nature, in line with her role as a representative of São Paulo and opponent of the capital’s mayor, and that the deputy was protected by parliamentary immunity.

In the request, the former first lady’s defense asks for the magistrate’s decision to be reconsidered and, if this is not possible, for the matter to be taken to the First Panel of the Court.