Lawyer Ives Gandra Martins asks for a jacket when entering the meeting room linked to the personal office located in a building in central São Paulo. With reduced mobility, he walks with the support of a walker, throws himself in the leather armchair positioned at the tip of a wooden table and talks about justice, politics and religion. It’s Wednesday (5), a week before the 90th birthday.
Reference between allies of (), Ives Gandra rules out in an interview with Sheet The possibility of the former president to run again in 2026. Even with a turnaround in the (Superior Electoral Court), he does not believe in a backing of the Supreme Court. He also said he saw in the president () the difficulty of age without a successor to him on the left.
It is in favor of the amnesty of condemned by the former president’s supporters invaded and depreciated the headquarters of the three powers in Brasilia, attacks that he calls the Baderna, and denies having been an attempt to blow. It is still in favor of favorably, which would favor Bolsonaro.
In political life, he says he has no regrets. In legal, he says he does not remember, but quotes one in the personal sphere: late reconversion to Catholicism. He remembers when he studied perfumery in France, branch in which his father acted, from the birth of his daughter, and his wife, Ruth, with whom he shared 62 years of marriage and 5 more dating.
Mr. It has been critical of the Supreme Court in recent years. In your opinion, what is the main excess committed by the court?
I am critical of the interpretation they give to constitutional law. What is their opinion? That when there is a constitutional principle of multiple interpretation – the dignity of the human person – the supreme understands that it is up to them interpretation. So they did with the, a, now the. This is the divergence. I think they can never be negative legislators, tell if a law is constitutional or not, while they understand that if they are provoked and did not do the law, they can interpret the general principle.
How to solve the problem of parliamentary amendments, which is a reason for clash not only between Supreme and Congress, but also federal government?
Personally, I find it absurd. I think this weakens budgets, but it is not the supreme competence to interfere with something that is the typical political relationship between the executive and the legislature. They have to talk. If a government is weak, the government falls, another group comes in, recapture the budgets. The only solution is in the next elections to change. It is a risk of democracy. But they are competences of the representatives of the people. The solution is not to say that, as an executive and legislature they do not understand themselves, so the judiciary will begin to do politics.
Mr. Do you believe this executive is weak?
The truth is as follows: he is not getting it. There are part of the ministries with parties that will have competitors in the elections, parties that were against the president’s party. I have the impression that while the President of the Republic makes a point of maintaining a polarization, we have difficulty in government, because there is a need to maintain radicalization, he is no longer dedicated to governing. Maintaining radicalization makes it difficult to see a more coherent administration. This is what we are seeing: his difficulty in Congress, a.
Like mr. Evaluates the legal situation of the country?
With this polarization, the Supreme is assuming political functions. This function of being a kind of vigilante of the executive, legislative branch, making the laws, interfering in the public administration, makes the Supreme also be treated as a political agent. Who agrees clapping. Who does not agree to curse. We no longer have that almost sacred image of the Supreme to the retirement of Moreira Alves, Sydney Sanches, Ilmar Galvão. We have a supreme who decides legally well, but who intervenes in political issues.
Like mr. Does it evaluate the conduct of inquiries related to undemocratic acts and the coup plot?
That was not a plot. I was a professor of the Army’s command and staff schools. It was absolutely convinced that the military would never enter a coup d’état. In 2022, I made a statement saying that the risk was zero, multiplied by zero, divided by zero, added to zero. I knew the military. It is so true that while there were crowds in front of the barracks, none of them took some measure. When, on January 8, there was that tail, none of the people had a gun. There was a small contingent of military personnel without even giving a shot.
Like mr. Analyzes the Federal Police’s revelations about a plot to murder the president, deputy and minister Alexandre de Moraes?
But as a plot? Such a decision would have to be made by the High Command of the Armed Forces. The impression I have is that what a small group of military may have exchanged ideas was, at most, such an absurd plan that it could not even be put in execution and it was not. It is so true that there was nothing, no beginning. I am convinced that this absolutely absurd plan, if it was such a plan or things, never would ever be able to succeed, because they would depend on the support of the Army, High Command; Navy, High Command; and the aeronautics.
Congress has been articulated about an amnesty project and reducing the end of the ineligibility from eight to two years. What is the evaluation of Mr.
For me, this movement, on the 8th, of protest, could not be a coup d’état, because disarmed no one gives coup d’état. As I do not see in this a violent attack on the rule of law, but a riot, I am in favor of amnesty. Regarding the reduction of ineligibility, my view is that the function of is respecting the will of the voter, only if there is something extremely violent, which represents an violent act, not a silly manifestation. I think it could be reduced perfectly, even not to harm future elections.
In December, the São Paulo OAB again filed a representation against mr. on charges of subsidizing an attempted coup. Like mr. Do you feel being the target of representation in the OAB?
In the first instance, I didn’t even defend myself, because I did not know the existence of the process. They decided that it is a legal interpretation distorted by them. At no time do I speak in a blow, to break the structures. All I always said in my writings is that it was to guarantee the law and order, not to break the law and the order. How would I predict January 8, as if January 8 were a coup? I would like to be so prophetic, but I confess that I am a modest citizen without these divine powers. When they turned, I made the defense. .
What is the most competitive candidate for 2026 in the opinion of Mr.?
I see Lula with difficulty his own age. You’re talking to a 90 -year -old guy …
But mr. It’s great, isn’t it?
No, I’m terrible, with walker, everything. The head still works a little, but the rest is not. All lectures, oral support, I do online. I no longer have a condition or climbing a plane stairs. It’s quite true, it’s 90 years, it’s not 79, but. There have been cancer, a number of problems. Either there will be physical conditions, or not. If so, it will be a candidate. If not, you will have to choose one. And I don’t see anyone on the left with Lula’s charisma.
On the other hand, even if the TSE gives the possibility of President Bolsonaro competing, I don’t think the supreme keeps. We will hardly have Bolsonaro. I see five candidates :,,, If they can have a unique candidate or a campaign in which they do not get together and if there is no change in the president’s economic policy, I think conservatives will have a chance.
Now, if the panorama changes, you ask me in six months what my opinion is.
Returning a little in history, mr. Do you regret any political positioning?
I was president of a political party between 1962 and 1964, the Liberating Party in Sao Paulo. Everyone says it was March 31 [quando houve a ruptura]March 31 was the national movement to guarantee the election of 1965. The real break came with Institutional Act No. 2. They eliminated all parties, including mine, who was a parliamentarian, the only one in Brazil. So at that moment I wrote a letter to Senator Mem de Sá, who became Castelo Branco Justice Minister: I will never make politics in life again. Well, I never wanted to do politics again and I feel extremely happy.
Mr. Have you ever regretted any legal positions?
As a teacher, I always kept my positions. What would I have sorry? Maybe I regretted the time when I had not converted to the church. This happened only in 1961. It was absolutely away. This is my life, but politically … politically, I will tell you the following: the moment they closed the parties, I declared that I would never do politics again. Legally, I made the books I wrote in law, the books I wrote in other articles. I never put this problem.
Mr. Can you tell the story of your reconversion?
I made the first communion. My father was theoretical. My mother was Catholic, but she followed Dad. I was far from the church. I studied perfumery in France when I was 18, alone, with all the freedoms of an 18 -year -old. I met my wife when I came back at the end of the year. She was Catholic. When my daughter [Angela] Born, I said: I want it to be like my wife. But how am I going to give an example if I do not, if I do not have my wife’s faith? Then I asked her to go teaching me the rudiments of the Catholic faith. I came back and it was the best thing that could have happened in my life. Everyone knew about the love I had for my wife. Miss it [momento da entrevista em que chora].
X-ray | Ives Gandra Martins, 89
A native of São Paulo, he is a tax lawyer and constitutionalist, president of the Superior Council of Law of Fecomerciosp and emeritus professor of Mackenzie and the Army’s command schools and command. He was president of the Paulista Academy of Letters and the São Paulo Lawyers Institute
