The (Supreme Federal Court) has been experiencing a moment of attack when safeguarding democracy, but – and even for that – needs to strengthen its image, evaluates a group of law operators and social scientists gathered by the FHC Foundation to present a proposal for improvement to the Court.
Under the organization of Oscar Vilhena, Sergio Fausto and Ana Laura Barbosa, 25 experts subscribe to the document delivered on Wednesday (1st) to the Minister, who from the Court on Monday (29).
Names such as and José Eduardo Cardozo, former Justice Ministers, and Antonio Cezar Peluso, former Minister of the Supreme.
It proposes actions in three applicable front lines without the need for legislative change. The focus is to strengthen collegiality, a precedent system and the approval of a code of conduct.
“In times of growing democratic regression, it is essential that all efforts are made to reinforce the institutional authority of constitutional courts, so that they can fulfill their primary mission to protect fundamental rights, as well as the rules of democratic game,” the text points out.
The group of experts calls for a focus on the articulation of collegiate will over individual decisions of ministers.
The suggestion is to restrict monocratic precautionary measures to “cases of absolute urgency”, as well as increasing the dialogue between magistrates through the obligation of early circulation of the opinion of the rapporteur and the presentation of concise votes followed by “a debate free of ideas”.
The significant amount of deliberations in the virtual environment also needs to be rethought, experts point out. They understand that the scenario interferes with the quality of decisions, as it occurs without the synchronous meeting of the ministers.
The authors suggest that complex or paradigmatic processes cannot be judged on the Internet and that the interface of deliberation is improved in this arena, “allowing messages, editions in the votes in the course of virtual judgment, as well as separated votes for general repercussion theses”.
For jurist Miguel Reale Júnior, it is “very important to restore collegiality as a discussion, not only in the sense that decisions are not monocratic, but there is a reduction in the number of virtual sessions.”
He states that the document delivered to the Court aims to strengthen the institution against a scenario of persecution and that, for this, it is essential to reinforce the collegiate. “Because the Supreme is not an island, as critically said the minister [do STF, Sepúlveda] It belongs, but it is a meeting of opinions. “
The document also cites the challenge of self -restarting in a scenario in which the Constitution has conferred power to the Supreme to “interfere with public policies and politics itself” in certain contexts.
“In some exceptional situations, expansive interpretations are essential, as they guarantee the protection of rights or values that, without this safeguard, would be unprotected. On all other occasions, however, the self -restarting in defining the reach of their own skills could and should prevail.”
The text preaches the development of stricter and clearer doctrines on the competence of the Court. For the experts, it is up to the court not to intervene when there is a “margin of assessment to the legislative and executive powers to make political choices within the constitutionally authorized options.”
In the inaugural discourse as president of the Supreme Court, Fachin spoke about the need for self -restarting conjugated to the protection of the autonomy of the judiciary.
“Judicial independence is not a privilege, but a republican condition. A submissive judiciary, whatever it is, even if it is populism, loses its credibility. The judicial provision is not a spectacle. It requires containment,” he said.
The magistrate also talked about the importance of collegiality, from which “the strength of this court” would come from.
Fachin assumed the presidency in an uncertain scenario for the Supreme Court in the midst of the abroad. The President of the United States has sanctioned court judges linking the measure to discontent with the judgment of () for attempted coup.
O on September 11 to 27 years and 3 months in prison for leading the coup plot, which had as one of the pillars the Belicoso behavior against the STF and a.
The FHC Foundation document also points out the need to reinforce the culture of precedents in order to strengthen the reputation of the Court. One of the proposals is the strengthening of the dialogue with other courts and the “presentation of robust justifications in the event of overcoming the precedents or to make a distinction in the specific case”.
According to Oscar Vilhena, professor at FGV Law SP, improvement is fundamental to expand equality in the application of the law.
“As ministers have very different reasons to resolve the cases submitted to them, it is necessary for the Court to qualify its precedent formulation methodology, which allows other judges and courts to understand the decision of the Supreme Court and the reasons that led him to make these decisions. More than that, the court needs to demonstrate more consistency with its own precedents,” says Vilhena.
Finally, the text delivered to Fachin suggests the creation of a Code of Conduct to the Supreme. The idea has already been rejected by the minister, who assumed this Monday the vice-presidency of the court. In June 2024, he told the Sheet there is no ” [de um código de ética]because the ministers of the Supreme are already guided by the ethical conduct that the Constitution determines. “
For experts linked to the FHC Foundation initiative, a code would preserve the ministers and the Court, whose reduction in confidence from various sectors could “significantly affect their ability to fulfill their institutional mission.”
Suggestions to compose the code are the decrease in individual exposure of ministers, regulation of participation in events and obligation to declare remuneration in external activity.
The text also cites the need for clearer rules on impediment and suspicion of the magistrates, with “facing the collegiate of impediment and suspicion arguments that represent plausible, albeit unfounded questions.”
