the STF needs a code of ethics

— I could not fail to mention the proposal, still being developed, to debate a set of ethical guidelines for the judiciary.

And he spoke of “the expressive body which spontaneously addressed the subject in the public debate”. There are no official statements against these rules of conduct, but some ministers, behind the scenes, oppose them. They say establishing the code at this stage would weaken the STF. It’s quite the opposite. What weakens the Supreme Court is precisely the inappropriate behavior of certain ministers.

• Budget 2026: Congress approves 61 billion reais for parliamentary amendments and minimum wage of 1,621 reais

Bolsonaro supporters protest against the condemnation of the putschists. They consider that the STF’s decision was arbitrary, motivated by political and not legal reasons. There is nothing to debate here. Those who attempted to carry out the coup and were convicted for it remain putschists when they demand the intervention or dismissal of Supreme Court ministers.

• End of 6×1 scale: Topic will ‘definitely’ be on House agenda in 2026, says Motta

In the public debate to which Fachin referred, other types of criticism appear which deserve to be analyzed. The first, older, considers that the STF has assumed powers beyond its constitutional competence. This criticism refers to the “end of the world investigation”, led by Minister Alexandre de Moraes, which began with press censorship and ended up condemning those involved in the coup plot.

The objections refer to the methods used in the criminal proceedings – extraordinary methods, considered necessary given the scale of the coup threat. According to them, due process was flouted for a good cause. Some analysts understand that everything could have been done differently. And that extraordinary methods taint convictions and open the way to annulment of trials, in the event of a change in the political composition of the court.

It happened to the Lava-Jato convicts. They have not been acquitted, nor has the existence of blatant corruption been denied. But the extraordinary methods used in the process allowed the courts, in another political moment, to free those they had put in prison. Analysts rightly observe that once the coup process is complete, the Supreme Court will once again have to strictly adhere to legal procedure, without extraordinary powers.

The second criticism in the public debate concerns the behavior of certain ministers. It is not new that there are ethical restrictions, but the two current cases cross the line. Let’s be honest: a minister should not board a businessman’s plane to watch a football match. Must not receive tickets on the track. And above all, we should not judge cases in which lawyers with a certain type of social relationship or kinship work.

Ministers should also not attend events organized by companies whose cases are before the Supreme Court. In fact, they should not participate in any of these armed parties in luxury hotels in Brazil and around the world. Do you want to watch the match? So, pay for travel, accommodation and tickets. With your money, not the Court’s funds. Does the minister consider it important to participate in an academic event? You must pay travel, accommodation and registration costs. In this case, if there is a relevant legal interest, you can even use the funds of the Supreme Court. But the spending must be published – not kept secret, as if there were a secret there.

Many lawyers argue that there is no need for a code of ethics. The judge’s personal responsibility and sense of ethics should be sufficient. But if that were the reality, we wouldn’t even need to discuss a code of ethics. The magistrate is perhaps the most rigorous in applying the law, but if he participates in these inappropriate practices, he raises doubts not only about his conduct, but that of the entire court.