A decision by the minister of the (Supreme Federal Court) increased the points of friction between the Powers by suspending sections of the Law on the removal of members of the court last Wednesday (3).
In , the magistrate determined that only the Attorney General of the Republic can file a request for impeachment against a Supreme Court minister and increased the number of senators needed to open a removal process. The topic will be evaluated by the other ministers in judgment in the virtual plenary.
The president of , (-AP), demonstrated outrage with the measure, and the House is already preparing new legislation in response, in addition to considering other measures such as a five-yearly reevaluation of ministers and an increase in the number of magistrates.
Understand in ten points what the minister decided, what the impeachment rules were until then, how Congress intends to react and what the next steps are.
What did Gilmar decide about the impeachment of a STF minister?
He suspended sections of the Impeachment Law () regarding the removal of ministers from the court. The decision was made in response to two actions, presented by the party and the AMB (Association of Brazilian Magistrates). According to the judge, such excerpts were not compatible with .
What were the rules provided for by the Impeachment Law of 1950?
The text defines the following as crimes of responsibility for STF judges: changing a decision or vote already given in session (except by appeal); participate in trials despite being a suspect in the case, carry out party political activity; being negligent (negligent or careless) at work; and acting in a manner incompatible with the dignity, honor and decorum of the office.
Originally, the law allowed every citizen to submit a request for impeachment of a minister to the Senate. It also established that the House could receive the complaint by a simple majority and that, from that moment on, the minister would be removed from office and would lose a third of his salary until the final result of the process.
How does the process for impeachment of STF ministers work?
According to the law, the complaint is received by the Senate Bureau and sent to a special commission, which issues an opinion to say whether it should be judged or not. If they decide that it should not be subject to deliberation, it will be archived. Otherwise, the panel sends a copy to the accused, with space for accusation, defense and discussion.
The final judgment is made by nominal vote, in which two-thirds of the senators present must vote for impeachment. If convicted, the judge leaves office permanently.
The judge suspended the expression “to every citizen” and established that only the Attorney General of the Republic can prepare a complaint for the commission of crimes of responsibility against ministers of the court.
The decision also changed the number of votes required to initiate the impeachment process, which was now two-thirds of the senators, instead of a simple majority. The sections that provided for removal from office and loss of a third of benefits were also suspended. With this, the target minister can remain in the chair during any process.
How is the application of liability crimes?
Gilmar’s decision also determined that the merits of judicial decisions by ministers cannot be interpreted as a crime of responsibility, setting an interpretation for two of the items provided for in the law, those dealing with negligence and conduct incompatible with the position. According to the decision, the main allegations for impeachment of a minister revolve around these devices.
What motivated the decision?
The measure, according to the minister, aims to protect the independence of the Judiciary against the risk of political instrumentalization and judicial intimidation resulting from impeachment requests.
The minister also claims that restricting the legitimacy for submitting a complaint to the (Attorney General’s Office) allows a technical and legal analysis of the existence of elements that justify the opening of a procedure.
How did the Senate respond?
President of the House, Alcolumbre demonstrated to his allies that he was . On the same day it was given, he made a statement in plenary on the subject. The senator demanded and talked about changing the Constitution.
The Senate is now preparing one for a Supreme Court minister and other authorities, such as the President of the Republic. Alcolumbre’s allies are also evaluating a process, including the reevaluation every five years of the court ministers in hearings and the increase in the number of magistrates to 15.
What was the Lula government’s reaction?
The Union’s attorney general, , opposed the decision and asked for it. The demonstration followed an order from Gilmar, who had determined that the (Advocacy General of the Union) be heard. The body asked the minister to wait for the final judgment on the matter.
The gesture was seen as a . Appointed by the president (), he is campaigning for the approval of his name for the STF. The positioning awakened , as reported by the Panel. .
What do the experts say?
criticize the decision for its content and potential impact, but also for the way it was delivered: in a monocratic and preliminary way, and in the virtual plenary instead of the physical one, limiting the debate and the visibility of the arguments.
On the merits, the general criticism points out that the decision represents a shield for Supreme Court ministers, creating an imbalance between the Powers. There are also those who point out inconsistencies in the premises used by the minister.
What happens now?
The decision will be taken to a referendum in the Supreme Court’s plenary session from December 12th to 19th. The trial will take place in a virtual session — in which ministers cast their votes in writing in a court system asynchronously.
In the Senate, the CCJ (Constitution and Justice Commission).
