“What comes from the outside doesn’t work”

— No proposal moves here if it is not built here. What comes from outside doesn’t work, he says.

The debate on the adoption of a code of ethics or conduct for ministers of the Supreme Court has gained momentum in recent days, led by the President of the Court, Minister Edson Fachin, who enjoys the support of the presidents of other higher courts. The subject began to be debated both inside and outside the court, with the defense of clearer rules regarding participation in events, public demonstrations and hypotheses of impediment and suspicion, which relaunched the evaluation of the need to consolidate the existing rules.

Asked about possible internal conversations on the subject, Gilmar said he had not been approached by Minister Edson Fachin to specifically discuss a code of conduct for the Court. According to him, the only recent contact between the two men occurred in another context, linked to the discussion of the impeachment requests against the ministers of the Supreme Court.

— This turned into a sort of Battle of Itararé. You’re fighting against it and we don’t see it,” he said.

For Gilmar, the subject took on artificial contours and turned into a disproportionate controversy. The STF dean said he considered the insistence on discussing behavior such as the presence of magistrates at public events or meetings with lawyers a “waste of time”.

Gilmar stressed that he does not see any irregularity in the participation of ministers in seminars, forums and meetings organized by public or private entities. According to him, these are public and transparent activities.

— I think it’s absurd. If someone was planning to do something bad, they certainly wouldn’t do it at an event, he added.

The minister also criticized proposals to restrict public demonstrations by members of the Court. For him, imposing silence on the ministers of the Supreme Court would be incompatible with the institutional role of the Court. Gilmar cited his own actions during the Operation Lava-Jato clashes as an example of the importance of public speaking.

— If I had been forbidden to speak, I would not have changed this situation. He spoke, denounced, attracted attention – he emphasized.

Gilmar also warned against the risk of creating rules that are too abstract, which would end up generating instability in the functioning of the courts. According to him, the blind expansion of hypotheses of suspicion can allow procedural manipulations. Despite the criticism, the minister declared that he was not opposed, in theory, to the consolidation of ethical standards, as long as the debate came from the judiciary itself. For him, any initiative must be built internally.