Like or hate? The question is asked in a joking tone on the Internet when someone behaves in an ambiguous way towards another person, group or institution. Because doubt, with enhanced doses of cynicism, now applies to Gilmar Méndez, of the Federal Supreme Court.
With a light stroke of his pen, the Minister suspended parts of the Accountability Act that dealt with the dismissal of members of the Special Task Force. His decision on Wednesday (3), individual and temporary, will remain under review by his colleagues – and it is hoped that they will have the distinction that Gilmard lacks.
The Dean of the Court spoke on the measures proposed by Solidariedade and the Association of Brazilian Judges (AMB). He emphasized in detailed terms that some provisions of the law were inconsistent with the 1988 Constitution. In simple words, it protected Supreme Court ministers from prosecution for crimes of liability.
For Gilmard, the law is outdated when, for example, it allows any citizen to submit a request for the removal of STF members to the Senate. The legitimate path, in the minister’s distorted view, is for the Attorney General of the Republic to be the only one capable of doing so.
It is appalling that such an experienced judge could issue such nonsense. First, because popular sovereignty is one of the most important principles of the current constitution, and it is not within the jurisdiction of the judiciary to limit it, especially for its own benefit.
Furthermore, Article 41 of the law, which Gilmar targeted, also allows any citizen to report crimes of responsibility to the Attorney General of the Republic. If the Brigadier General’s confusing logic is correct, can the Public Prosecutor alone prosecute himself?
Accountability law should be clear, and it is far from perfect. Dating back to 1950, it has already supported impeachment procedures for two presidents elected under the auspices of the so-called Citizen Constitution, Fernando Collor and Dilma Rousseff, but this does not free it from loopholes and contradictions.
Updating it is necessary. However, this task falls to the National Congress, not to the Special Combat Force. This Council must withdraw, as it did in the past, to the role of overseeing the application of the law and the Magna Carta, ensuring strict adherence to the procedures established there, without any room for opportunistic manipulation.
Gilmar took the opposite direction. Perhaps seeing himself as the last bastion of democracy, he decided to rewrite the law with his own hand, certainly with the aim of protecting the STF from possible attacks by senators eager for revenge against the court.
But by usurping the powers of the legislature, the minister undermines the already weak credibility of the Supreme Court. It helps make you weaker, not stronger. It supports the argument of those who criticize the Court, not always rightly, for its lust for power.
Even the Supreme Court’s greatest enemies find it difficult to do such damage.
Editorials@grupofolha.com.br