Constitutional Law professor André Marsiglia criticized what he called selectivity in the decisions of the STF (Supreme Federal Court) during his participation in the WW this Wednesday (3).
According to him, he tried to shield the Court, while the STF itself recently considered the Congressional Shielding PEC as something unconstitutional.
Marsiglia highlighted the contradiction in .
“I find it curious, above all, that this issue of shielding is interpreted as a democratic prerogative by the minister, in the 70 pages of his vote, but not long ago, when the same Congress was promoting the PEC of shielding themselves, with prerogatives for Congress, this was read, including by the STF, as something unconstitutional that could not be done”.
Criticism of the usurpation of powers
The professor was emphatic in stating that it is not possible to consider the shielding of one institution democratic and the shielding of another undemocratic.
“The shielding needs to be either seen in the wrong way for everyone, or everyone has the right. This type of selectivity is what makes the STF’s decisions, in general, worthy of severe criticism”, he argued.
also mentioned that the case represents more than a simple shield, classifying it as a “usurpation not only of the powers of the Senate, but of the powers of the people”.
He cited article 41 of Law 1079, which deals with the impeachment law, highlighting that it gives the people the power to denounce STF ministers.
According to the professor, this power was “snatched” from the people and handed over to the PGR (Attorney General’s Office), which he considers “a power allied to the STF itself.”
Marsiglia concluded his analysis by stating that “taking away their prerogative from the people and taking it away from the Senate, which is the people’s representative, is all very serious. This cannot be worth shielding from the STF.”
The professor also commented on Gilmar Mendes’ training, highlighting that the minister studied Constitutional Law in Germany and has a strong influence from German history in his legal training, particularly the dissolution of the Weimar Republic.
However, he highlighted that this influence does not justify certain positions, as “we have another reality, other times and another Constitution too”.
