Former minister said that the STF is being placed in the showcase unnecessarily, that it is a slingshot that returns
The monocratic decision taken this Wednesday (3) by the Minister of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) Gilmar Mendes dominated the opening of the XLI Conjuntura Brasileira Congress of Fecomércio-SP, which had as its central theme the role of the Judiciary. Former minister Marco Aurélio Mello was the first to comment on the matter and classified the measure as worrying
“I saw the news that my colleague, minister Gilmar Mendes, working with a collegiate in an objective process, implemented an injunction when he should have taken the process to the collegiate. He implemented an injunction for what? To wear down the institution? Implemented it to reestablish something that is a monopoly, to have himself as the only person accredited to represent himself to the Senate as the only member of the supreme court? What’s that for? To leave, even more, the STF in the window and the slingshot working? It’s terrible in terms of progress. It’s terrible in credibility and citizenship”, he said.
The former minister made reference to Gilmar Mendes’ injunction that determined that only the Attorney General’s Office can request impeachment proceedings against STF ministers — a prerogative that, until then, could also be exercised by any citizen. Marco Aurélio reinforced that monocratic decisions of this nature “cannot become the rule” and defended that the debate be taken to the plenary to avoid “personalization of decision-making power”. He also stated that the Supreme Court must “watch itself so as not to distance itself from society”.
Temer says antagonisms worsen institutional reactions
Political polarization created fertile ground for measures that, subsequently, “require complex explanations from society”. This is what the former President of the Republic, Michel Temer, said: “We live in a moment in which exacerbated antagonisms lead to equally extreme interpretations. We need to rescue moderation in politics, because it is in moderation that institutional harmony is built”, said Temer.
The former president defended that the country needs to resume “serene legal dialogue” and drew attention to the risk of judicial decisions being received by public opinion as political gestures, “even if they are not”.
Ives Gandra criticizes legal uncertainty and defends clear limits to the STF
Jurist Ives Gandra da Silva Martins, one of the main speakers at the event, also took a stand after the repercussions over the monocratic decision. He stated that Brazil is experiencing a moment of “normative instability” caused by the multiplicity of individual decisions made by ministers: “The country needs legal certainty. We cannot have a system in which structural changes can occur through monocratic decisions, without collegial discussion. The excess of injunctions fragments the Law and creates uncertainty for society and economic agents”, he said.
Gandra also highlighted that defending limits to the Supreme Court “is not attacking the Supreme Court”, but rather strengthening the balance between powers.
Rosas claims that society is ‘against the Judiciary’ and calls for reconnection
The president of the panel, jurist Roberto Rosas, stated that society is currently experiencing a feeling of distance from the Judiciary, something that, according to him, should concern all legal operators: “Society is against the Judiciary, and this is very serious. Not due to lack of knowledge, but due to saturation. It is necessary to rebuild bridges, better explain decisions and reduce the feeling of arbitrariness”, declared Rosas, reinforcing the need for transparency and institutional communication.
