The -SP (Brazilian Bar Association of São Paulo) sent a letter last Tuesday (25) with suggestions of 12 questions for the hearing for the position of minister of the (Supreme Federal Court).
The questions were prepared by members of the OAB-SP Judiciary Reform Study Commission. According to the institution, the objective of the measure is to contribute to an analysis of the “professional, ethical and democratic profile” of the nominee.
The questionnaire proposal includes topics such as the candidate’s view on the hypotheses of impartiality and suspicion, the debate on one and the virtual plenary (system through which ministers vote asynchronously).
Other spa suggestions deal with the opinion of the panelist in relation to the participation of STF ministers in events paid for or funded by companies and pejotização and uberização, the focus of .
The president () for the vacancy open with that of the minister, a choice that frustrated the interests of the president of the Senate, (-AP), who preferred (-MG).
Messias must now undergo a hearing at the CCJ (Constitution and Justice Commission) scheduled for December 10th. If his name is approved by the collegiate, it is voted on in plenary, where at least 41 of the 81 senators must win.
Created this year, the sectional commission decided in November to collaborate with the hearing process and intends, by the end of the first half of 2026, to present guidelines for carrying out a broader reform of Brazilian Justice.
See below the questions sent by OAB-SP to the Senate
- Regarding the impediment and suspicion of judges, do you understand that the hypotheses provided for by law are exhaustive or are there other situations that must be observed?
- Can the STF Minister judge cases related to the interests of people, private companies or public entities that he represented before being appointed? For example, can you judge a company case for someone who has a lawyer? Ex- can you judge it to be of interest to the Union?
- Should the public anticipation of a Minister’s opinion in the media on a legal thesis or factual situation generate impediment or suspicion? Do you understand that Ministers should restrict their demonstrations through the press and social media?
- How do you evaluate the use of the virtual plenary session in relation to the practice of law, especially regarding the right to oral arguments? Do you believe that recorded oral arguments meet the requirements of broad defense of citizens’ rights?
- Regarding the forum by function prerogative, do you consider that the current rules of criminal jurisdiction of the STF are adequate or should they be revised?
- You think it is ethically legitimate for the STF minister to:
a) receive payment in cash or goods for holding a lecture, conference, panel, inaugural class and similar events in the country?
b) participate in party political events?
c) participate in public or private events in which people who are a personal party participate, or who are present, representative, shareholder or partner of a legal entity that is a party to an action before the STF, or in a dispute whose decision, in the near future, will be submitted to the STF?
d) judge a case that is being or has been sponsored by a lawyer, spouse or relative, or by a law firm integrated by the spouse or relative?
e) publicly respond to criticism of public behavior or your vote, or the decision of the STF in which you have participated?
f) accept gifts or donations of goods worth more than R$200.00 (two hundred reais)? - Do you know the Code of Ethics of Supreme or Constitutional Courts in other countries? Do you think the STF should issue a Code of Ethics for its members?
- What is your opinion on the monocratic granting of an injunction and the deadline for its submission to the Panel or the Plenum?
- Should the STF have preliminary and reserved sessions before the public judgment of cases and appeals?
- How do you see the role of the Federal Supreme Court in implementing the CNJ’s Judgment Protocols with a Gender and Race Perspective? Considering that these protocols are important tools for promoting material equality and constitutional interpretation, how do you believe that the STF can contribute to ensuring that its guidelines are effectively applied, especially in decisions of great repercussion, such as those involving concentrated control and general repercussion, on issues related to structural discrimination and gender and racial inequality?
- What three prohibitions do you have? Would you include it in the Code of Conduct for the Judiciary, considering that it also applies to STF judges?
- We have witnessed growing tension between the STF and the Labor Court around the issues of pejotização and uberização, with a strong impact on tax revenue and the precariousness of the world of work. How to ensure the fundamental rights of workers provided for in articles 6. and 7th. of the Federal Constitution, and the competence of the Labor Court, according to article 114 of CF/88, in this context?
