Since the beginning of this term, the president’s government has recorded decisions in line with his positions and obtained a succession of victories in the (Supreme Court) through the (Attorney General of the Union).
Of the 111 constitutional actions originated from the Supreme Court in which the AGU manifested and were judged by the Court in 2023 and 2024, 99 had results adherent to the position of the institution, which corresponds to 89% of the total.
In this type of action, a individual interest is not discussed as in a common judicial process. The Supreme Court verifies whether the object under discussion is constitutional or not in abstract, that is, regardless of the specific case.
From another point of view, AGU’s judicial success rate in the processes in which it actually acted as a part defending the interests of the Union reached 74% in a universe of 5,888 decisions in the accumulated period. In 2024, the reason was 76%. In the previous year, 72%.
HAS Sheet The Attorney General of the Union, said that the result of the Supreme action throughout 2024 demonstrates the work of the body in defense of the heritage of the Union and the Democratic Rule of Law.
“We are on the right track and we prepare to obtain even better results in 2025,” said Messias, who has among the attributions the representation of the Union in the STF and the direct and personal advice of the President of the Republic.
Asked, the AGU did not send data related to the period of (2019-2022).
Lula x Bolsonaro
The opinion of experts heard by Sheet It is that, in addition to the figures recorded in each period, petist management wins contrast with the standard observed under Bolsonaro’s government.
The Lula government accounted for successes in processes related to,, and.
Former President Bolsonaro, on the other hand, faced defeats when he was in power, in, and even at.
Prior to Jorge Messias, who has been in the position of Union Attorney General since the Lula administration began in 2023, they held the post, under Bolsonaro, Bruno Bianco, José Levi and, today STF minister.
Gabriela Zancaner, Professor of Constitutional Law at PUC-SP, considers that the difference between Lula and Bolsonaro governments does not derive so much from the AGU performance, but from the composition of the Court and, especially, the very lack of compatibility of policies evoked by the former president with the laws of the country.
Zancaner sees a court, composed even by a majority of ministers nominated in petist management, more aligned with Lula than Bolsonaro.
But, according to her, “it’s not a matter of I kick, and you score the goal,” but a “question of competence of the Supreme and the path that this government has followed.”
“We were a little out of normality, with certain attitudes of the past government, own and even personal of the former president, who were authoritarian and contrary to the constitutional text,” says the teacher. “Lula, paraphrasing Bolsonaro, acts much more within the four lines of the Constitution.”
The Professor of Constitutional Law of IDP André Rufino, coordinator Constitutional Observatory Group, linked to the same institution, states that, at least in the last two years, the Supreme and the organs that work before the Court have been working in an environment of “greater institutional tranquility”.
The dialogue was one of the Bolsonaro government problems, according to the researcher, and was especially from 2020 to 2022, during the pandemic and before the presidential elections. “When there is no such conversation, it brings negative results to processes, judgments, everything. It’s a chain effect.”
According to Rufino, AGU’s own performance in the previous government was more through the process, in a more combative logic of winning, while current management, apart from engagement for the return of democratic normality, has aimed at one.
For example, the Supreme Court took over last year the renegotiation of the Mariana Agreement (MG). A month later, the involving União, the states of Minas Gerais and Espírito Santo, the Public Prosecution Service, the Public Defender’s Office and the companies Samarco, Vale and BHP.
In turn, Álvaro Palma de Jorge, professor of constitutional law at FGV Law Rio, says he does not see a supreme more inclined to the Lula administration, the Bolsonaro government or the other. It also points to the difficulty of separating the victories of each management because the issues are often circumstantial.
“It depends on what comes to the Supreme, when it comes, who has proposed … The court plays the institutional role with what is presented, sometimes decides in a favorable way, sometimes contrary,” he says. “There will be decisions that may correspond to a possible interest of the government and others other than.”
He says Bolsonaro may have had more actions challenged for disrespecting the constitution and adopting wrong pandemic measures. However, he points out that Lula did not face a crisis like that or other similar situations, so it would not be possible to predict what he would do under these circumstances.
“Perception,” says Palma de Jorge, “that the Supreme Court made more decisions [contrárias] The Bolsonaro government has much more to do with the Bolsonaro government than the Supreme, it has much more to do with how much the government acted on issues that are constitutionally sensitive or not. “
