President of -SP (Brazilian Bar Association), Leonardo Sica minimizes the departure of the (Supreme Federal Court), calls for the appointment of a woman to the vacancy and questions the level of exposure of court ministers.
The criminalist claims that the trial of the former president () was political in nature, but took place within legal limits. However, he considers the punishments for coup plots to be excessive and supports the discussion on reducing penalties in the .
Sica received the Sheet at the sectional headquarters on Wednesday (8). The lawyer responded to new questions from the reporter by telephone last Friday (10) after the announcement of Barroso’s early retirement.
Like mr. Did you receive the announcement of Minister Barroso’s early retirement?
It was an expected retirement. . It gives us the opportunity to try to calmly discuss the composition rules of the Supreme Court. I hope that we have a public debate, that someone with legal knowledge and experience will take on this important role, although, in the end, the decision will be made by the President of the Republic. We are already thinking about ways to collaborate, not indicating names, but criteria.
What criteria do you Do you consider them reasonable?
In addition to those in the law, we should look for someone with longer practical experience in the law: a lawyer, a judge, a prosecutor. We have had recent choices — I won’t name people — with more political experience than practical experience in law.
What about diversity criteria, such as being a woman, a black person?
Let’s defend. We really hope it’s a woman. This is the discussion now. The plenary has only one woman. It’s unacceptable.
What does this retirement mean for the future of the court?
It is within the normal life of the institution. Ministers retire. I don’t see much of an impact on this.
Regarding , what has been worked on so far?
The commission carried out initial diagnostic work, which was not so complex, because research already exists. It was more about bringing together what already exists, updating it. From this, the commission defined five axes: slowness, integrity, access to justice, stability and STF. Now, in this second phase, we will hear from the Judiciary representatives themselves.
Is the deadline still due in June?
Yes, even because of the electoral calendar. We know that, from July next year, the National Congress will be paralyzed due to the . If we want something more effective, we have to deliver it in the first semester.
How do you see the issue of TV Justiça, considering press freedom?
The existence of TV Justiça is healthy, but the broadcast of all trials is not. Freedom of the press is guaranteed with open-door trials. This must always continue. Journalists can enter, watch, record. Live broadcasting on TV, on national television, is not necessarily related to press freedom.
Judgment is a solemn act that often does not match media language, especially when it involves judging people. We may have the hypothesis that the transmission is conditioning the outcome of the trial. We must consider what it will convey. We have major judgments: use of stem cells for research, same-sex unions, demarcation of indigenous lands. These are big constitutional questions. I think it’s great that we have their broadcast, but we have to consider it.
Does media exposure, in your opinion, compromise the judge’s impartiality?
It compromises, in general, any judge, any person.
How to give an interview, for example?
Yes, the minister giving an interview about the case at trial is undoubtedly something that cannot happen.
What Time now with Minister Fachin in the presidency of the Supreme Court?
Minister Fachin, in his first statements, gave the meaning of what he intends to change. He is a more discreet judge, averse to media exposure. He wants to focus on the Supreme Court’s agenda, that is, he thinks it is important for the Supreme Court to determine what will be judged, to have an organized, public, prior agenda. He seems aware of the moment. There was an overexposure of the Supreme Court. He perceives this as bad.
What a balance Mr. what about the trial of former president Jair Bolsonaro?
The balance is positive. We overcame the dilemma of applying a law never before applied to a former president of the Republic. [É] It is very difficult to start testing a law in an extreme hypothesis. And there was a lot of controversy at the base of society, but the institutions, in the end, acted well. They managed to hold a public, regulated, civilized trial. Someone spoke a little louder, a little quieter. This happens in every trial. What we saw is not so strange, it is in the nature of the criminal trial.
When we propose to discuss the size of the result, whether the penalties are excessive, whether the penalties should be regulated, it is also positive, because this is a republican discussion, because the law is new. If the law needs to be adjusted, it is a valid discussion.
What is your opinion? about the reduction of sentences being discussed in Congress?
The penalties applied are excessive considering the rules of our legislation.
The penalties for the executors of the 8th of January or for the masterminds of the coup plot, or both?
Of both. The penalties are excessive. It is healthy to discuss an adaptation to something that is proportionate. A homicide is normally sentenced to between 20 and 30 years. Penalties that are too high are inefficient in general. This has functionality in extreme situations, people who need to be removed from society, because, if they walk on the street, they represent a danger. This is not the case with any of these defendants. These are people who can return to social life. So, serving the sentences, for me, the sooner they can return, the better.
They exist . The first is not to accumulate the crimes of coup d’état and abolition. Another is to reduce the minimum and maximum sentences for both. Mr. Do you believe that one of them is better than the other?
Honestly, I don’t know both of them. [propostas] and I didn’t think about it.
The idea of absorbing one crime by another was well discussed in the trial.
It was well discussed. This issue does not belong to Congress, because the Judiciary judged that two crimes occurred and that there was no absorption. What Congress can do is enact a new law with lower penalties and improve the criminal situation.
Mr. Do you believe that Bolsonaro’s trial was more legal or more political?
There is no way a trial of a former president of the Republic is not political. It was a political trial within legal frameworks. There was accusation, defense, following the law, but it had a political character, which is not necessarily bad.
Mr. has already criticized the lack of transparency in the use of artificial intelligence by judges and courts. When does the use of AI in the Judiciary move from an auxiliary tool to a decision-making mechanism, requiring stricter regulation?
A is useful in repetitive, procedural, everyday tasks. That is good. It should not be used for decision-making. The decision-making process must be human. And it should not be used to replace the interaction between humans, a lawyer and a judge, for example. The lawyer always has to talk to the judge, he cannot talk to the robot. There is still no clear discussion on this. I don’t know if it’s the [Conselho Nacional de Justiça]Congress, I don’t know who will take on this role of defining where the robot speaks, where the judge speaks, where human interaction is necessary.
The CNJ has one. It’s not enough na your opinion?
Regulation is good, but I insist that we need a law. We need the National Congress to pass a law.
Only for judges?
No, for everyone, lawyers, prosecutors, defenders. For example, defenders serve the underserved population. If we implement a radical approach to the Public Defender’s Office, we will probably exclude citizens from access to justice. In a country like Brazil, which still has great poverty, we also need to discuss this. You cannot have radically digital justice at the risk of being exclusionary.
Do you intend to run for re-election in two years? Will you go to the Federal Council, like your predecessor?
As it is voluntary work, the decision to continue at the OAB is not just about personal political will. My bills are paid through law. It’s a decision that’s less about politics and more about my personal life. I’m 51 years old. I still have time to dedicate myself to the OAB, another four, five years. I want to. Here or in Brasília, it doesn’t just depend on me, but on the family in particular. Then, I depend on a public trial. We are elected. If you can present a good [relatório de gestão]I am encouraged to continue. If not, I’ll take care of the house and the law.
X-ray | Leonardo Sica, 51
Criminal lawyer, is president of the OAB (Brazilian Bar Association of São Paulo), the largest section in the country, for the three-year period from 2025 to 2027
