Military Statute prohibits the use of uniform during political-party manifestations, non-military activities abroad and inactivity
At the beginning of the interrogation of the defendants of Nucleus 3 for alleged attempted coup on Monday (28.Jul.2025), the assistant judge of the Supreme Court (Supreme Court) Rafael Henrique Tamai Rocha stated that the rapporteur of the case, Alexandre de Moraes, there.
Given the decision, Lieutenant Colonel Rafael Martins began his testimony in the interrogation of the defendants of Nucleus 3 for alleged attempted coup at the Supreme Court (STF) only after removing his military uniform. He began to answer the questions around 7:11 pm, after the judge “it happened”Defendant Rodrigo Bezerra de Azevedo in front of him. The group is composed of 9 military personnel and 1 Federal Police agent, and the questions to the accused would be in alphabetical order.
For Fabio Tavares Sobreira, publicist and professor of constitutional law, the minister’s decision is “unconstitutional and abusive ” then “It hurts the principle of legality, the military hierarchy, the dignity of the human person and the proceedings itself ”.
According to the expert, if the military is active, he has a functional duty to use the uniform. This goes for situations in which it officially presents itself, including in court. Read below.
What the law says
The 1980, has a section only on uniforms: Articles 76, 77 and 78.
Article 76 says that “The uniforms of the Armed Forces (…) are private to the military and symbolize the military authority, with the prerogatives that are inherent”.
Article 77 states that the use of uniforms is established by the specific regulation of each armed force. Still, items A, BEC of article 77 state that the use of uniform is prohibited:
- manifestations of a partisan political character;
- in non-military activities abroad;
- In inactivity.
According to the legislation, in principle, the use of uniform is a prerogative of the military, inherent in his own position. As much as each force has its regulation, they cannot divert the military status. To prohibit the use of uniforms, the specific army should have a specification in this regard. This is not the case with the Brazilian Army.
In the military sphere, every active military must be uniformed. But in the case of, the defendants are being questioned and will be tried by the common sphere of justice.The determination of an STF minister also operates as a legal determination –same force”Of the law.
“Legal blow”
Fabio Tavares Sobreira describes Moraes’s decision as a “legal coup incompatible by the Constitution“. The expert told the Poder360 that the minister’s decision is a “jurisdictional activism, which goes beyond the limits of what the Federal Constitution allows”.
According to the expert, if the military is active, he has a functional duty to use uniform, especially when officially introduced. “The use of uniform, in the context of military defendants, is not a privilege or an act of affront – it is, in many cases, a right that stems from the functional condition of the accused,”, declared. “Law No. 6,880/1980 (Military Statute), in particular Article 14, establishes that the use of uniform is a duty of the active military, except for legal exceptions or legitimate orders of hierarchical superiors of the military structure itself.”.
The publicist also classified the Order of Moraes as “unconstitutional and abusive” then “It hurts the principle of legality, the military hierarchy, the dignity of the human person and the proceedings itself ”.
When asked about non -compliance with the alphabetic order previously established by the Court, Sobreira stated that the impediment or postponement of interrogation without legal basis constitutes procedural nullity. “The defendant has the right to be heard in the form and time due, and the act cannot be conditioned to the arbitrary or vexatious requirement – such as the removal of the uniform ”.
For the expert, “jumping the turn” of a defendant in judicial interrogation because he is wearing the military uniform represents “illegal embarrassment” e “A clear affront to due process of law and the dignity of the civil service exercised by that military man. ”
Understand
The defenses of Martins and the defendant Hélio Ferreira Lima, who were uniformed, had questioned the determination of Moraes as soon as the hearing began. Assistant judge Rafael Henrique Tamai Rocha clarified the origin of the order during the session. “This is a determination of the rapporteur minister. The accusation is against military and not against the army as a whole”he said in answering the questions.
Rafael Martins’ defense suggested the postponement of interrogation in the face of determination, as it did not undergo a formal order process. Hélio Lima’s lawyers agreed, and said his client was being exposed to a situation “vexatious”By having to“Remove the clothes and borrow”.
In response, the assistant judge proposed that the lawyers would verify the possibility of arranging another clothes to his client until he was questioned.
Lima changed and was the 4th to talk, and Martins would be the 6th. But, as Martins was still uniformed, the judge determined that he was “suspending in relation to him ”, passing the next defendant in front of him while consulting the rapporteur minister.
Martins’ defense stated that the defendant was still uniform because, according to the lawyers, “There was no office hours in the prison unit”In which he is detained.”Only [tem] Security staff and this even make it difficult for us to get another dress for him, ” They said. They also stated that his family was prevented from performing the diligence because the defendant’s wife accompanied her mother in the hospital, and that the lieutenant colonel’s mother took care of her father.
At the end of the statement of defendant Rodrigo Bezerra de Azevedo, the assistant judge had an opinion from Alexandre de Moraes. The minister had established that the defendant should change his shirt to “Attend as determined“For the court. Otherwise, he would understand that he had used his right to silence.
The rapporteur wrote the following:
“Interrogation is an act of defense. If the defendant’s defense does not attend as determined, the session will be closed. If the defendant is arrested, therefore has clothes to be used, since he is not uniform in prison. The defendant has 10 minutes to attend to exercise his self-defense. If he does not attend, this Court will understand that he abdicated his right to the right to silence,” wrote the minister.
The assistant judge read the magistrate’s note and asked Martins’ lawyers if he would participate in the interrogation. The defense replied that yes, and Rafael Martins began his testimony using a dark green shirt.
