There is no old law, remembers Gustavo Sampaio, professor of constitutional law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. The law exists and, as such, it must be respected until legislators decide to change it in deliberation. It is the competence conferred on the collegiate body by the rule of the Republic.
In the minister’s view, however, it is at the convenience of ministers, who fear political retaliation.
Therefore, the dean of the court saw fit to give urgency to the matter and the right of citizens and state representatives to ask the supreme court to grant the prerogative exclusively to the Attorney General of the Republic.
First, there is no presumed urgency, except on the assumption that the 2026 election will place two-thirds of Supreme Court persecutors in the Senate — who would have the power to ignore the legal requirements for impeachment, none of which are related to the content of sentences. All refer to procedures that are perfectly open to questioning.
Second, there is the separation of Powers, which implies autonomy, harmony, but also the exercise of mutual control. Hence it is the function of the court in question to judge parliamentarians and their task is to analyze and decide on impeachments of presidents subject to the same law 1,079, in force for 75 years without the challenge of the 1988 constituents.
There is no republican justification for the Supreme Court to be moved from the role of guardian to the place of authority above the law. In this reasoning, nothing would prevent the heads of the Executive from receiving the privilege of remaining out of reach of citizens tomorrow.
Once the precedent is set, hell is the limit for restricting rights. Next week, the full STF will decide whether or not to accompany the dean. If they give approval, they act to protect themselves from the consequences of their actions in court.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
