The minister was the second to vote in the virtual plenary and followed the rapporteur in the judgment which sets out the details of the decision which broadened the scope of the forum and expanded the jurisdiction of the Court to judge authorities and politicians.
December 13
2025
– 6:16 p.m.
(updated at 6:21 p.m.)
Minister Alexandre de Moraes was the second to vote in the ongoing trial in Federal Court (STF) which specifies the criteria for applying the privileged forum. This Friday the 12th, he fully supported the rapporteur of the file, Gilmar Mendesin a virtual plenary session of the Court. The other ministers have until the 19th to present their votes.
On Friday the 12th, the STF began deciding the details of the decision which broadened the scope of the forum and expanded the Court’s jurisdiction to judge authorities and politicians. As shown in Stadium, General Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic (PGR) the court continued, asking for clarification on four points:
- Effect of the decision on cases for which the investigation has already been completed;
- More precise criteria for cases in which the accused have successively occupied functions subject to different jurisdictions;
- Application of the new guidelines for lifelong positions, such as those occupied by members of the judiciary, the public prosecutor, the Court of Auditors, the armed forces and diplomatic careers;
- Forum for crimes committed under the pretext of exercising a public function, within the framework of the electoral process.
In 2018, the STF restricted the forum due to functional prerogatives. The decision was taken to reduce the volume of criminal actions after the Mensalão. Since then, criminal investigations and proceedings involving authorities such as deputies and senators were only to begin and end at the STF if they were related to the exercise of their mandate. In March 2025, the court reversed course and defined that, when it comes to functional offenses, the forum must be maintained, even after the cessation of its functions.
First to present the vote, Gilmar defended that the new rule be applied to ongoing processes, that is, actions currently being processed in lower courts, even those that are in the final stages of processing, ready to be judged, must be sent immediately to the STF.
The STF must decide what happens in cases where the accused successively hold positions in different jurisdictions, such as a governor, who has the prerogative of being prosecuted by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), and then assumes the mandate of deputy, subject to trial at the STF. Gilmar, followed by Moraes, argued that in these cases the jurisdiction of the “higher court” prevails.
“The most appropriate measure is for the authority to transfer the case to the highest court, which will be responsible for supervising the investigation until more evidence is gathered and greater certainty about the circumstances of the crime is obtained. As the investigation progresses, two possibilities arise: either the forum will be consolidated in this court, or the investigation will be referred to another level of jurisdiction, if it turns out that the criminal acts do not reach the subsequent mandate”, he suggested.
Gilmar defended that the same rule defined for politicians also applies to judicial authorities, the public prosecutor’s office, the Court of Auditors, the armed forces and diplomatic careers.
The rapporteur considered that there is no special forum for crimes committed during the electoral period, under the pretext of future exercise of functions. The dean, however, recognized that in specific cases, such as electoral crimes linked to functional crimes, which continue up to diplomacy, the forum must prevail.
About The Author
