The minister of the (Federal Supreme Court) stated this Monday (17) that the court provided an example of judicial activism in the judgment on the constitutionality of article 19 of the .
The statement was made at a business lunch of the Lide group, owned by the former governor of .
“We create restrictions without law. This is called judicial activism, which many colleagues defend. I don’t defend it, because the Constitution doesn’t allow me,” said Mendonça, when answering questions from the audience.
Mendonça sat at the table next to the mayor of São Paulo, (), the vice-governor, Felicio Ramuth, and the president of -SP (Brazilian Bar Association), Leonardo Sica.
The court’s decision on the constitutionality of article 19 of the Marco Civil da increased the responsibility of digital platforms for third-party posts and created a duty of care regarding content. Mendonça opened the divergence and defended the maintenance of the norm.
The minister also demonstrated concern about the issue of public security, which he treated as one of the indicators of public governance in the countries. “Anyone who understands public safety knows that, sometimes, we want to treat a cancer problem with an AAS pill,” said Mendonça, who stated that he was not advocating “A, B or C”.
“I’m saying we have a serious public safety problem. […] According to what was told to me by authorities, 40% of the territory of greater Rio is dominated by organized crime”, he stated afterwards.
Mendonça also commented on how he deals with disagreements in the STF, stating “I don’t disagree with my colleague, but with the idea”. He advocated that ministers make “concessions, sometimes legitimate and reciprocal, that allow a path to the best result.”
“I don’t mind being defeated. I mind leaving in doubt as to whether it was the best vote I gave,” he said. Mendonça was recently involved in a discussion with Minister Dias Toffoli during a session of the First Panel of the STF. The body debated which court would be competent to analyze an action for moral damages filed by a federal judge against an attorney from the (Federal Public Ministry).
Mendonça’s reference to a 2021 vote given by Toffoli in an appeal on the same case displeased his colleague, who accused him of misrepresenting the content of the decision and said he was exalted by Mendonça’s “cowardice”.
