(Supreme Federal Court) has postponed the analysis of the validity of the increase in penalty to those who commit crimes against the honor of a civil servant and the presidents of the Senate, the House of Representatives or the STF due to their duties.
The president of the court, minister, is the rapporteur of the theme and participates in the session on Thursday (8) remotely.
Barroso is in São Paulo and informed his colleagues at the opening of the session he was in this morning, a reference of Constitutional Law, in (University of São Paulo).
Thus, Luiz Edson Fachin, vice president, announced that when Barroso is in person at the session, the matter should be resumed.
The case began to be tried on Wednesday (7) and had five votes, as well as a heated debate about the differences presented.
On Wednesday, he defended, in the plenary, there was no need to distinguish offenses to public servants, making these more serious than offenses to other citizens.
At Wednesday’s session, he was effusive in response to André Mendonça’s position. The first said to his colleague not to admit to being called a thief.
“Calling a thief is an opinion about the person. It’s not a specific fact,” said Mendonça.
“Minister André, for me, is a serious offense. I do not admit that no one calls me a thief. Because this thesis of the flexible morality they invented is the thesis that degrades the public service and demoralize the state. I just want to inform you that please, we do not admit. In my perspective is a very serious offense,” he said.
“There is no flexible morality,” he said. After Dino ending his speech, Mendonça amended, “If a citizen can’t call a thief politician …”
“And the Supreme Minister can?” Dino came back. “I am not distinct from others,” Mendonça replied.
Dino insisted: “If a lawyer climbs this podium and said that you are a thief I will be curious to see the reaction,” he said.
Finally, Mendonça stated: “It will answer for contempt or a crime in the same penalty that any citizen would have the right to be compensated in his honor.”
So far, Barroso and Mendonça have voted for the line of not differentiating the punishment if the offended person has a civil service.
Dino, Alexandre de Moraes and Gilmar Mendes argued that the increase in penalty to these cases means additional protection to the public institution to which the servant or president of power is linked.
“We are just saying that the reputation of a public servant is no more valuable than that of an ordinary citizen. By the position of you if someone offends a nursing technique in SUS will have a greater penalty than offend to the D’Or Network. Personally I don’t think it’s a discrimination that makes sense,” said rapporteur Luis Roberto Barroso to Dino.
On the other hand, Moraes also said: “The impunity of crimes against honor automatically generates the possibility of aggression, the criminal feels encouraged.”
The Penal Code provides for three types of crime against honor: slander (imputing to someone the commission of crime), defamation (attributing non -criminal fact, but offensive to reputation) and injury (opinions or judgments of negative value that offend someone’s dignity or decorum.
The discussion is about the increase of one third in the penalty of these crimes. By vote of the rapporteur, the worsening of the penalty is justified only in the case of slander, which considers the only crimes against honor that, because it involves imputation of crime, it represents effective risk to the performance of servants and public agents.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
