The president of the (Supreme Federal Court), said this Friday (17) that it is necessary to recognize that Brazil is immersed in a crisis in relation to the performance of the Judiciary.
He said that it is necessary to face it, with care not to repeat “old solutions”, and that the court he commands has to reflect on its actions and its limits.
“When we talk about crises, it is essential to recognize that we are effectively immersed, in relation to the actions of the Judiciary, it is a crisis that needs to be faced, and faced with eyes to see and ears to hear”, he stated. “Or else we will repeat, for new problems, old solutions that simply mean relegating problems without solving them.”
Fachin participated in a lecture at FGV (Fundação Getulio Vargas) which focused on the role of the Judiciary in guaranteeing public security as a fundamental right.
The minister defended the importance of Justice paying attention to its limits. “Any expansion of power, even if well intentioned, needs to be accompanied by self-restraint and critical reflection,” said Fachin. “It is essential that the Judiciary, and especially the Federal Supreme Court, which is attributed, not without controversy, obviously, the last word on the Constitution, maintain the Judiciary’s reflective stance on the limits of its own actions”, he added.
“The Judiciary necessarily needs to put before itself a mirror in which it can look at itself to see possibilities and also see its limits.”
He also stated that “we live in times of institutional distrust” and “intense polarization in all directions”, adding that this distrust arises from multiple factors and that each institution needs to reflect on what is contributing to its increase or decrease.
Citing specifically the Judiciary, he stated that “whenever the judge appears to be acting as a political agent disguised as a legal interpreter, public trust is lost.”
Since the end of last year, Moraes and the former banker have been one of the main fuels of the crisis that has been wearing down the court.
In the midst of this, there is pressure from civil society and business for the approval of a more detailed code of ethics applicable to members of the court, a banner defended by Fachin, but which faces internal resistance in the court.
When asked by journalists about references to STF ministers in important investigations, Fachin stated that no institution and no person is immune to scrutiny, and the STF will not hide the case, but highlighted that defense prerogatives must be respected.
“This crisis, which was not born within the Federal Supreme Court, will not be hidden by the Federal Supreme Court,” he said.
Aida declared that the court “will provide important answers in a united and collegial manner, defending the institution and also defending the prerogative of anyone to defend themselves, to avail themselves of the right to defense, to clarify these circumstances, and also to be accountable to society”.
This week, the Supreme Court was one of the protagonists of yet another, after Senator Alessandro Vieira, rapporteur of the CPI (Parliamentary Inquiry Commission) on Organized Crime, proposed the indictment of three members of the court, , and , as well as the Attorney General of the Republic, Paulo Gonet.
Asked after the lecture about how to resolve the crisis caused by the episode, Fachin minimized the impact of what had happened on the relationship between the Powers, in a less forceful note in the note he released on the date the report was presented.
“I understand that there is no institutional crisis between the Judiciary and the Legislature. There are different understandings about a certain phenomenon, for example, what is the scope of a certain CPI and what is its thematic relevance”, he said. “But, in no way, has the importance of Parliament monitoring everyone and all institutions through the CPI been called into question and should not be questioned. He who owes nothing, fears nothing.”
In defense of his colleagues, Fachin stated: “The path of indictment due to a court decision seems to us to be not an appropriate path. I argue that, when one does not agree with a given decision, the appropriate path is to appeal, to challenge the decision, and not to attack the institutionality itself.”
The STF minister even highlighted an excerpt from Senator Alessandro Vieira’s report on the presence of organized crime in different regions of the country.
Although the focus that motivated the opening of the CPI was organized crime, Vieira did not mention any other actors, besides the ministers of the STF and Gonet, in his indictment proposal, which led to criticism from different groups. The reaction of Supreme Court ministers, in turn, including Gilmar’s request for an investigation against Vieira, was also criticized.
After a meeting with the Senate leadership, the senator’s report ended up being rejected by 6 votes to 4.
As shown by Sheetstands up to Fachin’s agenda and understands that, amid criticism, the president of the court should make a public and unrestricted defense of the integrity of his ministers. In this line of thought, Fachin’s actions would leave the court more exposed to attacks.
Another group, which includes the minister, rapporteur of the code of conduct, is in favor of the measure.
Leading jurists, including former Supreme Court ministers, have also advocated reforms at the court, including stricter rules on monocratic decisions. Examples of documents with proposals are the FHC Foundation report released last year and this year’s proposal prepared by -SP (Brazilian Bar Association of São Paulo).
One of the arguments of those who defend changes is that if the court fails, the reform could come from outside — and not necessarily to improve it.
Both the Supreme Court and some of its individual ministers should be at the center of the electoral campaigns this year for Senate candidates from Bolsonaro’s political group, which will seek enough votes to proceed with the impeachment of magistrates in the next legislature.
