Former minister of the Civil House, of the PT, says that “justice prevailed” after the Court closed an action of improbity due to a “gross error” by the MPF
The former Minister of the Civil House (PT) celebrated on Tuesday (21.Oct.2025) a decision of the STJ (Superior Court of Justice) in the Mensalão case, a vote-buying scheme in Congress that had PT leaders as the main defendants. According to the PT member, “justice prevailed”.
Through his profile on X (formerly Twitter), Dirceu que a Corte “Finally recognized the error.” from the MPF (Federal Public Ministry). “I received the news calmly. […] I end this cycle by believing that the truth, sooner or later, always comes to light.”he wrote.
UNDERSTAND THE CASE
The 1st Section of the STJ confirmed, unanimously, that the former minister of the Civil House José Dirceu, José Genoíno and Delúbio Soares —all former PT leaders— and the former minister Anderson Adauto must be removed from the administrative improbity action linked to the Mensalão case.
The decision, which also benefits 11 other defendants, was taken on October 2, during the analysis of and published on Monday (Oct 20). Read the ruling (PDF – 705 kB).
The Court understood that the MPF committed a “gross error” when appealing against the 2009 decision that dismissed the case without ruling on the merits for the 4 defendants and 11 other co-defendants in the misconduct action. At the time, the 1st Instance argued that whoever held the position of minister could not be held responsible for impropriety, while the others were already defendants in identical actions. It was against this decision that the body appealed.
According to the Code of Civil Procedure, when a decision excludes one of the defendants, but the process continues in progress with others, the appropriate appeal is .
The TRF1 (Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region), which analyzed the MPF’s appeal, also understood that the Ministry appealed with the wrong instrument.
On the other hand, the 2nd Panel of the STJ established the continuity of the misconduct action of the 4 defendants. The judges concluded that there was objective doubt as to the appropriate appeal and there was no gross error. In this way, they applied the rule that allows a court to accept an erroneous appeal as long as the mistake is reasonable, within the deadline and has not harmed other parties.
Then, the defenses of the 4 defendants presented appeals that were judged in court, 10 years later. Now, the STJ reaffirmed that the MPF used the wrong instrument to appeal. Still according to the panel, this mistake does not allow the application of the principle of fungibility.
The rapporteur of the revised appeal, minister Sérgio Kukina, stated that after the 2015 decision, the 2nd Panel changed its jurisprudential orientation. The current jurisprudence is that decisions that exclude a defendant from misconduct and do not close the process must be challenged through an interlocutory appeal, and not others through appeals. As the court’s guidance had already been consolidated, the magistrates considered the error gross and inexcusable.
