Ministers of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) consulted him value Evaluate that Accountability lawThe court, which dates back to 1950, allowed removal requests for political reasons and retaliation against court members for decisions that displeased parliamentarians. They highlight the arrest of the former president as the latest issues causing the conflict Jair Bolsonaro (PL) and orders involving Modifications.
That is why, for them, the legislation cannot remain as it is. In a virtual plenary session, scheduled to begin next Friday (12), the ministers will analyze the decision of the Dean of the Minister’s Office Gilmar Mendezwhich suspended parts of the law and restricted recall requests. Gilmar decided that only the Prosecutor’s Office (PGR) can request that opening the process requires a vote of two-thirds of the Senate, rather than a simple majority.
The decision widened the crisis between the powers. Opposition representatives and senators criticized the judge and accused him of strengthening the powers of the legislature to protect the court. President of the Senate, David Alcolombre (Uniaão-AP) In turn, she warned that the House of Representatives would consider the proposal that changes the constitution to prevent judges from making decisions Individual decisions And about the Senator’s project Rodrigo Pacheco (PSD-MG) which changes Accountability law.
The proceedings were already scheduled to be judged
Gilmard is the rapporteur of the two actions that question Accountability law The trial was already scheduled for the twelfth day, that is, before the unilateral decision. In these processes, the authors, Solidarity The Brazilian Judges Association (amp), defending the exclusive legitimacy of the Attorney General of the Republic to file a complaint demanding the dismissal of ministers and the approval of two-thirds of the members of the Senate. There is already a positive statement from PGR.
In Wednesday’s decision, which sets out stricter rules for dismissal requests – in line with the request made in the proceedings -, Gilmar He stated that the dismissal of STF ministers is an instrument “of an extraordinary nature.” Despite this, he confirmed that members of the court were beginning to be threatened with removal because of their decisions, an understanding shared by other ministers in the court that members of the court listened to. value.
The dean said in the decision: “When the judiciary is exposed to arbitrary external pressures, as is the case in the case of dismissal aimed at violating the foundations of judicial decisions issued by members of the Supreme Court, it loses its ability to act as a legitimate and neutral counterweight to other forces and becomes another tool at the disposal of the momentary interests of political groups.”
He continued: “It is important to emphasize that the practice of removing ministers, when used in an abusive or manipulative manner, is not limited to an attack on individuals, but rather is designed as an attack on the structure of the rule of law itself. When members of the Supreme Court are removed or threatened on the basis of political motives, the message conveyed is that the judiciary cannot, or should not, exercise its functions.”
The demands erode “popular trust” in the STF
According to Gilmard, threats to dismiss members of the Special Provisional Force erode “popular confidence in one of the most important institutions” of the country and represent an “intimidation mechanism” to subordinate the judiciary to the interests of other powers, which would harm “the effectiveness of constitutional oversight, the protection of fundamental rights, the reduction of abuse of power and the accountability of agents involved in crimes.”
Under the law, before a decision is made, any citizen can file a formal accusation with Congress to demand an impeachment process.