Allies of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) plan to file an Allegation of Non-compliance with Fundamental Precepts (ADPF) with the Federal Supreme Court (STF) to question the Senate’s stance in relation to hearings and approvals of ministers for the Court. The initiative, according to lawyer Marco Aurélio de Carvalho, coordinator of Prerogativas, would be a “cleaning brake” after the government’s historic defeat in nominating Jorge Messias for the Supreme Court seat.
Yesterday the Senate rejected Messiah’s nomination to the court, the first such decision in 132 years. The setback for the government further strains the relationship with Congress, less than six months before the election. The nominee had 34 votes in favor, seven less than necessary. There were 42 votes against.
According to the lawyer, the Federal Constitution is clear in granting the President of the Republic the exclusive “right and duty” to nominate ministers to the Supreme Court, exercising a judgment of convenience and opportunity, and the role of the legislature should only be to assess whether the nominee has “notorious legal knowledge” and an “unblemished reputation”.
— He (the president) thinks about whether he wants to nominate a man, a woman, a white person, a black person, someone from academia or law. This judgment, which is political in nature, is made by the president. What is up to the Senate is to assess two requirements, which may even be subjective. The first is the notable legal knowledge and the second, the unblemished reputation – he stated.
Marco Aurélio argues that, once these requirements are present, the Senate would have the “bound competence” to approve the name, regardless of ideological differences. As an example of institutional respect, he cited the appointment of André Mendonça in the previous government. Despite criticism from the left for Mendonça being “terribly evangelical”, as defined by Jair Bolsonaro, Prerogativas defended the right to nomination because he met the technical and constitutional requirements.
— I may not like it, but it’s his right [do presidente]. The guy is a jurist — he pointed out.
Continues after advertising
For Marco Aurélio, the current situation requires a “clearance brake”, preventing political disputes from unduly interfering in the institutional rite.
— We do not want to disrespect or impose will on the Senate, we just want reciprocity. We treat public matters with institutionality and we want to be respected when exercising our powers – he declared.
According to the jurist, this is the time to “lick the wounds” and the movement does not just focus on the current scenario or specific names, such as Jorge Messias, but rather on creating an institutional precedent. If the action progressed, Lula would have the prerogative to resubmit the name and the Senate would be obliged to present technical justifications if it decides to reject a name.
— It’s not about the Messiah. It’s about not allowing this to happen again. It’s about setting a serious precedent for the country — he explained.
— The only adult seems to be President Lula. It’s not possible for one baby to want to take the other’s bottle. What the Supreme Court can do is this, what the Senate can do is this, what the Legislature can do is this. Point. Constitutional or not, we are trapped in the powers that were constitutionally designed — he assessed in conclusion.
