Magistrate said that it must be rejected ‘amplating interpretation to cover conducts that configure irresignation with electoral result, without intent to ruin the institutions’ that guarantee democracy
The minister, of the, defended on Wednesday (10) that the crime of abolition of the rule of law “punishes conduct deliberately directed to lead the nation to an internship of authoritarian regime”, and should be rejected “expanding interpretation to encompass conduct that configures mere irresign with the electoral result, without capacity or intent to ruin the multifaceted institutions” that guarantee democracy.
By defining the limit of the framing of the crime of abolition of the Democratic Rule of Law, Fux has a tour of the role of judges. According to the magistrate, unlike the magistrates, who should “abstain from frequent public statements, notably those of political nature, given the constitutional duty to preserve the independence and impartiality of institutions,” political agents should be engaged in public debate, essential for democracy, which “often occurs by inflamed and sudden speeches.”
“How much the political agent must manifest the risk of unfortunate statements, offensive statements, it is permanent, but these statements must also be cleared by the democratic filter, in the light of voter scrutiny. If these statements could be considered attacking on democratic institutions, there would be an inhibitor effect on public debate,” he said.
According to the minister, as much as some behaviors “can be harmful to the country’s political maturity” – “delaying the solidification of their legal and social structures towards the state of a consolidated or full democracy” – these conduct cannot be criminally framed “when unable to cause, as its direct consequence, the complete abolition of the multiple elements intrinsic to the state of law”.
“An expanding understanding of the material object of this crime would unduly submit to the risk of sanction the acts of political agents practiced under the system of brakes and counterweights, including judicial decisions, which, by chance, limit the functioning of other powers,” he said.
*With information from Estadão Content
Posted by Nátaly Tenório
