Transparency regarding the actions of ministers, prevention of conflicts of interest and institutional protection are the arguments most cited by names from different areas that defend the adoption of a code of conduct for ministers of the (Supreme Federal Court).
Jurists, economists, academics, businesspeople and social leaders consulted by the Sheet state that the establishment of rules on topics such as participation in events, travel, receipt of benefits, relations with interested parties and public demonstrations does not represent censorship or interference in the power to judge, but an instrument for preserving the court’s credibility.
The idea gained prominence after, in Peru, to watch the Libertadores final. He went to the country on a private jet alongside one of the lawyers involved in the case, who is under the supervision of the magistrate.
made in Brazil and abroad as well, both in financing the events and through the participation of ministers alongside politicians, businesspeople and other people directly interested in court proceedings.
The president of the STF, opened a debate on ethical guidelines for the judiciary. Internal initiatives by other ministers.
Signed by more than 200 people, including businesspeople, economists and other names from different segments of civil society, it asks the STF to adopt the code.
The common diagnosis of the ten names consulted by the report is that, in a context of high public exposure of the Supreme Court and growing questioning of judicial decisions, the absence of objective parameters contributes to recurring crises, speculation and institutional wear and tear.
A code of conduct, they assess, would help reinforce social confidence in the court’s impartiality and protect its authority as guardian of justice.
See the arguments presented below.
Poor Ana Elisa
Elected Director of the Faculty of Law at USP (University of São Paulo)
“The proposal for a code of conduct should not be taken as censorship or an instrument of persecution or punishment of judges. On the contrary, it is an excellent instrument of individual and, above all, institutional protection.
Brazil is going through a period in which democracy itself is at risk, and one of the forms of attack is precisely to discredit its institutions, especially the Judiciary.
This involves increasing questioning of magistrates and their decisions, deliberately generating social distrust.
On the other hand, since the end of the first decade of this century, STF ministers have been overexposed, including through the broadcast of trial sessions, almost becoming characters in the social imagination. It is said that, if before the Brazilian citizen knew the names of the players of the Brazilian football team by heart, today they not only know how to mention the names of our 11 ministers of the Federal Supreme Court, but also believe they know their respective legal-political positions.
This brings several difficulties, leaving the work of judges exposed to feelings and criticism, often devoid of technical basis.
It is important to remember that a supreme court often decides in an unpopular or even counter-majoritarian way and, therefore, institutional democratic credibility is fundamental.”
Oscar Vilhena
Director and professor at the São Paulo Law School of Fundação Getulio Vargas and columnist for Sheet
“The Supreme Court would benefit immensely from the adoption of a code of conduct. The prominence achieved by the Supreme Court in the Brazilian political system, giving the last word on issues of utmost importance for the country’s political and economic life, requires a high standard of trust from the population in the court.
The extremely high number of monocratic decisions, in the Brazilian case, reinforces the need for ministers not to arouse, through their actions, any distrust on the part of citizens. The adoption of a code of conduct would help to avoid situations that harm the reputation of the court and its members.
The authority of a court depends on the recognition by those under its jurisdiction that it acts independently and impartially. Therefore, a code of conduct must prohibit all conduct that creates distrust regarding the impartiality and independence of the courts.
It must establish the situations that generate impediment or suspicion of magistrates in the judgment of cases submitted to them. It must regulate the conduct of magistrates outside the courts, from the way they can express themselves; types of activities that can and cannot be carried out; transparency rules on remuneration for academic activities; participation in conferences etc.”
Former STF minister
“It is imagined that the members maintain ethics and have an exemplary attitude, the way I found the Supreme Court in 1990, when I took office. More important than the formal, what is documented on paper, is reality.
Today, the criticism is great. Let the code of conduct sound like a warning, noting that the example comes from above. There has been a lot being reported by the mainstream press, and citizens are perplexed.
The code will signal the stance to be adopted internally and externally. But everything involves understanding, perceiving the size of the chair occupied. The members of the Supreme Court are passing through, but the institution, the last trench of citizenship, is perennial.”
Valeria Morato
Trade unionist, president of Sinpro-MG (Minas Gerais Teachers’ Union) and vice-president of CTB (Central dos Trabalhadores do Brasil)
“It is natural that all large institutions, including those of the Judiciary, do have a code of ethics and conduct. But, to strengthen the institution, the rules must be guided by common sense, not by casuistry.”
Ana Fontes
Founder of RME (Rede Mulher Empreendedora), vice-president of the UN Brazil Global Compact Council, member of the Council for Sustainable Economic and Social Development of the Presidency of the Republic and columnist for Sheet
“I believe that a code of conduct should exist for any organization — be it a private company, entity or public authority, in any instance.
Every code of conduct establishes rules and possibilities. Of course, they never cover 100% of situations, but they help to make the limits clearer.
The objective of the code of conduct is to allow the STF itself and its members to know what the ethical limits are.
There could not be a lack of, for example, rules regarding benefits, travel, participation in events, as well as clear reporting channels and the definition of due process.”
Maria Tereza Sadek
Political scientist and senior professor at USP
“Obeying the rules is easier than everyone judging for themselves what they can and cannot do. So, I think the code of conduct improves and strengthens the institution.
An authority that is judging a case cannot have a relationship with someone who is being judged. Participating in events, such as dinners, situations in which several ministers travel at the expense of the person being judged, I think is not appropriate. You can’t do that in Germany, you can’t do that in France, you can’t do that in the United States.
When someone chooses a career in the judiciary, they lose a large part of their freedom. This is inevitable. All careers have that.”
Arminio Fraga
Economist and former president of
“A code of conduct is needed to deal with conflicts of interest, related parties and the interaction of ministers with interested parties.”
Ailton Krenak
Writer, member of the ABL (Brazilian Academy of Letters) and indigenous leader
“It’s more than urgent.
The worsening of crises between the Powers of the Republic only further blurs the ethical limits of the magistrate’s individual action. Access to fair decisions in the collegiate becomes a privilege for a few, offending the constitutional mission of the STF.
The debate around the time frame demonstrates this ethical flaw. Only those who can and have the password can ensure that controversial decisions, even within the established limits, follow the rite until the end. Even in the face of a clear offense to the Federal Constitution, ministers still admitted resources and maneuvers.”
Rosana Rufino
President of the OAB-SP Racial Equality Commission and director of IANB (Institute of Brazilian Black Advocacy)
“The case involving Banco Master works as an institutional warning, independent of individual value judgments. Episodes of this nature make clear the need for rules that are previously known by society.
When there is no objective code, space is opened for divergent interpretations, public speculation and criticism that end up affecting not only the minister who is involved in the controversy, but the STF itself as an institution. Therefore, the code of conduct also serves to protect and strengthen the image of the institution.
A code of conduct needs to follow the evolution of society and the new institutional challenges that arise. For example, the use of social media directly impacts public perception of judicial impartiality.
It is essential to define limits, care and responsibilities in the use of these platforms, preserving institutional sobriety and confidence in the decisions made in court. It is also necessary to think about the use of artificial intelligence in the Judiciary, which is already a reality.
The code must establish ethical guidelines on its use, whether in support of jurisdictional activity or in institutional communication, ensuring responsibility, security and respect for fundamental rights.
Furthermore, [deve prever] objective criteria on the participation of ministers in events financed by private companies, institutional relationships with large economic groups or parties with an interest in processes under trial, limits on receiving gifts, hospitality or indirect benefits.”
Marcos Mendes
Associate researcher at Insper and columnist for Sheet
“Current practices and suspicions raised about STF ministers, which range from monocratic decisions to exonerate confessed criminals to administrative law crimes, seem to require much more than a code of ethics. Existing criminal and impeachment legislation should be used to deal with serious cases and evidence. However, the STF itself tried to protect itself by rewriting, on its own, the impeachment legislation and taking upon itself the role of last resort in criminal matters.
We are facing a case in which a Power grew larger and got out of control. A simple code of ethics will certainly not resolve the situation. But its adoption may be a sign that society is no longer accepting the current permissiveness.
The case of Banco Master is certainly emblematic […]but the case of the fake news inquiry also draws attention, opened to, through censorship, block Federal Revenue investigations into the income of judges’ relatives.”
