President of the Federal Supreme Court states that Congress is not up to Congress to reduce the penalties of those involved and that the most appropriate scenario to complete the trial of former President Jair Bolsonaro (PL) is before the elections
In an exclusive interview with the globe published on Sunday (27), the president of the , expressed its position contrary to the for participants in the scammer acts that occurred on January 8. He considers that the granting of forgiveness is inadequate and that the responsibility for the reduction of penalties must be of the National Congress. Barroso also expressed the expectation that former President Jair Bolsonaro’s trial will be finalized before the next elections.
In his analysis, Barroso stressed that the Supreme Court has acted in accordance with current legislation. For him, those who believe that penalties are excessive should seek changes in legislation rather than claim amnesty. The president of the Supreme Court pointed out that amnesty is a possibility that arises only after the application of punishments, and many of the processes are still in the trial phase.
“I do not care for pressure, although not indifferent to social sentiment. The Supreme applied the legislation issued by Congress in the judgments of . The solution to those who think the penalties were excessive is a change in the law. I don’t think it’s the case of amnesty, because amnesty means forgiveness. And what happened is unforgivable. But resize the extent of penalties, if Congress understands well, is within its competence, ”said the head of the judiciary.
As for the sentence review, Barroso stated that, according to current legislation, there is no room for this practice in the Supreme Court. He also expressed concern that Bolsonaro’s trial does not occur in parallel to the election period, as this could influence the climate of the elections.
“It would be desirable, as long as it is compatible with the legal process. We still need to hear the witnesses, produce evidence and know if it is possible to judge this year. Although the application of law and the electoral process are distinct things, if we can prevent it from happening simultaneously, it is desirable. Because it is decisions that impact the electoral moment. It is better that law issues are judged in an electoral environment,” said Luís Roberto Barroso.
Barroso defended the STF’s performance, stating that the court does not commit abuse and that the criticism it often receives are reactions to decisions that do not please everyone. He emphasized the importance of judging cases that arrive in court, even in the absence of specific legislation that regulates certain situations.
The STF president also addressed court safety issues, noting that threats increased after the complaint against Bolsonaro. However, he believes that the physical risk to the court members is low and expressed hope that security measures, such as grids, can be removed shortly.
When asked about the Court “committing excesses”, according to Bolsonaro allies, as in the case of and the Barroso argued that they are “two completely different situations.”
“Life has become a representation for social network cuts. Therefore, sometimes people, instead of playing their role, create a factoid to post. To avoid this, the first class did not allow filming. As for the quotation in the ICU, Minister Alexandre (from Moraes) found that if thecould receive quote. Either you are disqualified for health reasons to participate in public activities or are qualified. It cannot be for certain things and not for others, ”explained the STF president.
The Federal Supreme Court (STF) has been criticized in Brazil and internationally. Recently, the English magazine The Economist questioned the power and visibility of the court ministers, pointing out an alleged excessive STF intervention in the other powers. This criticism was promptly coupled by the members of the Supreme, who clarified that they are only fulfilling the role that the Constitution attributes them.
“The Supreme plays the role that the Constitution attributed to it. No more, no less. There was globally the construction of a narrative, usually led by extremists, that in Brazil there would have been censorship or some kind of action outside the process of law. The statement is absurdly false. The magazine embarked a little in this understanding. One of the criticism is that the supreme interferes with other powers. I can refrain from deciding because Congress did not legislate, ”said Barroso.
Finally, Barroso commented on the issue of abortion and shared that ‘I would like the country to have a better awareness of the issue’, emphasizing the need for more human and understanding treatment for women facing this situation. He expressed the desire for society to develop a better understanding of the subject, promoting a more empathic and informed debate.
“I would like the country to have a better conscience about the issue of so that we can move forward in this agenda. Unfortunately, you don’t have it yet. You can be against, you can preach and may not do and yet have the perception that this is different from thinking that the woman who has gone through this situation should be treated as criminal and placed in jail. These are completely different things. The treatment that takes place in Brazil is highly discriminatory. It seems very obvious to me, but it is not the dominant feeling in society, nor am I sure it is the dominant feeling here in the Supreme, ”said Luís Roberto Barroso.
*Report produced with the aid of AI
