The (Supreme Federal Court) has its members divided and some of them still have no defined position on maintaining the dean’s decision in restricting the impeachment proceedings against ministers. The decision will be voted on in a virtual plenary session next Friday (12).
There is an assessment in the court that the case could publicly expose an internal division, a break in the image of cohesion that the court sought to cultivate during the administration of Jair Bolsonaro (PL) and in the response to January 8 and the coup plot, an action that led to the former president’s conviction.
Gilmar had already told the press that he would take a position in the action this year, but the precautionary (provisional) decision was not communicated in advance to all ministers. This wing was also dissatisfied with the moment and the way it occurred.
Gilmar’s decision was considered one and caused a strong reaction in the Legislature, mainly in the Senate. The House is responsible for conducting impeachment proceedings against members of the court.
Heard by Sheet Privately, two ministers and three magistrate assistants said that at least four members of the court were uncomfortable with the decision and three others were still evaluating possible ways to resolve the controversy.
There are ministers who, however, are wary of the symbolic weight of going against the position of the court’s dean and giving a public signal of an internal division. The dean is the oldest minister and, although this is not a formal position, he has the respect of the other ministers for his accumulated experience and has an intermediary role between colleagues.
At least until the trial of the coup plot, which condemned Bolsonaro and seven other defendants for attempted coup d’état, the court had been valuing an image of unity in the name of institutional defense, even in the face of the attacks it has suffered in recent years.
Throughout the week, after the decision on impeachment, ministers said little about the topic. During the sessions and when they met in the so-called snack room next to the plenary, the topic would not have been mentioned between them.
The matter will be a challenge for both the Supreme Court and Gilmar, who still does not have the guarantee of majority support in the plenary.
As shown by Sheetthe president of the STF, , to lower the temperature and began to debate the topic with the president of , (-AP).
The two heads of Power discuss the vote on a new law on authorities. The alternative could be a solution to the divergence of the Supreme Court itself.
Last Friday (5), Senator Weverton Rocha (PDT-MA) released a report that makes concessions to the STF, but that Gilmar’s measure.
When the decision on this was taken by the Dean of the Supreme Court, senators were talking about giving a suitable response, but the president of the Senate’s CCJ (Constitution and Justice Commission), Otto Alencar (PSD-BA), has stated that the project has no intention of confronting the court and should only be approved next year.
Internally, in the court, there is an assessment that the possibility of initiating an impeachment process against a minister was greatly facilitated by the law in force since 1950. Furthermore, the polarized political environment caused requests of this type to multiply.
Both Gilmar and made comments in this regard during an event in Brasília last Thursday (4).
Gilmar said it was “possible and recommended” for Congress to vote on a new law that addresses the issue. Dino said he hopes that “this judgment will serve as a stimulus to the National Congress to legislate on the matter.”
The issue reached the Supreme Court in September this year, through two actions that request changes to the rite of court ministers — and which aim to make the measure more difficult.
The ADPFs (argument of non-compliance with a fundamental precept) were presented by the AMB (Association of Brazilian Magistrates) and the Solidariedade party.
Both maintain that the rules for processing, provided for in Law 1,079/50 (Impeachment Law), should not have been adopted by the 1988 law.
Senators linked to the former president’s impeachment, and express the conviction that, in 2026, to remove him from the STF.
