The president of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), Edson Fachin, spoke out this Monday, 20th, about the article published by minister Flávio Dino in which he defends measures to reform the Judiciary. Fachin chose to ignore the various veiled criticisms from his colleagues, who spoke of “artificial measures” and ‘retaliatory’ in the debate on changes to the Justice system, and adopted the defense of his proposals in response.
For Fachin, “the perspective of the debate presented in the article authored by Minister Flavio Dino deserves applause and support”. The president of the STF assesses that his colleague presented “a timely and well-structured reflection on the need to improve the Judiciary, treating the issue with institutional seriousness and a sense of republican responsibility”.
“By avoiding simplistic solutions, the text values a consistent diagnosis and proposes paths that dialogue with the real demands of society, especially with regard to efficiency, transparency and strengthening public trust in institutions”, defended Fachin in a press release.
Fachin’s kind words contrast with Dino’s harsh reprimands. In his article published on the website ICL Newsthe most recent minister at the STF stated that the country “needs more Justice, not less, as certain superficial speeches about supposed ‘self-restraint’, seen as a ‘philosopher’s stone’, seem to intend”.
The discourse of self-restraint has been repeated exhaustively by Fachin in his internal and external campaign in defense of the STF’s code of ethics. In an interview with Estadão in January of this year, the president of the Court emphatically defended: ‘Either we limit ourselves, or there could be a limitation by an external Power’.
Two months later, in a lecture to students, Fachin explained his view that “self-restraint is not weakness”, but rather “respect for the separation of Power, which clashes with Dino’s assessment”.
Continues after advertising
In the note released this Monday, the president of the STF highlights the merit of Dino’s article as the emphasis given to ethics and functional responsibility, despite the fact that his colleague did not incorporate any of his proposals already presented in the debate on the Supreme Court’s code of conduct, such as the obligation to account for amounts received for lectures and participation in events.
“The balance between judicial independence and control mechanisms is approached with sobriety, reinforcing the idea that institutional credibility also depends on the ability to recognize flaws and correct them firmly and fairly”, assessed Fachin.
“Finally, the text contributes to qualifying the public debate by treating the reform of the Judiciary as a continuous, open and plural process. By stimulating reflection and dialogue, it offers a solid basis for building consensus, always guided by the public interest and the preservation of the values that support the Rule of Law”, he concluded.
