The minister, as president of the (Federal Supreme Court), announced that the minister will be the . The initiative comes after criticism directed at ministers about the inadequacy between the role they occupy and their business ventures, the proximity they maintain with parts of the processes and their lawyers and the constant presence in the press and in sponsored by sectors interested in the trials.
Even though these behaviors may justify the need to impose express and clear limits on ministers, there are doubts whether, legally, a code of ethics would even be necessary. After all, provisions of -including the creation of -, the National Judiciary Law, civil and criminal procedural laws and even the court’s internal regulations already, the independence and decorum of the judicial function.
The question is how the court itself has interpreted all these rules and freed itself from controls. Collegiately, the court decided not to submit to the National Council of Justice, to empty the courts and restrict the . It will also be the ministers of the Federal Supreme Court who will interpret the rules of a future code of ethics. Given this history, nothing indicates that a code of ethics will be more successful than the Constitution and existing laws, even though it can be considered a moment of change and public commitment for the court.
However, this does not mean that it will not fulfill any function. A code of ethics, at this point, plays a fundamental role in self-preservation of the court’s powers. By indicating that he will create rules for himself, the Supreme Court makes it difficult for others to do so. It is the same move it made to deal with criticisms about requests for views, which interrupted trials for a long time, and monocratic injunctions, which hijacked the competence of the collegiate: before being reformed “from the outside in” by a , the court adjusted its internal rules.
This seems to be a relevant strategy to prevent an agenda to improve the court from being transformed into a gag if appropriated by extremist political forces, especially in a situation in which democratic corrosion is being attacked.
Headed as the court by minister Edson Fachin and under , both with a more discreet profile and who are out of controversial situations reported in the press, the code of ethics seems to have more political impact than a legal one. It will not be an easy task to change their current practices, but it could serve as a good parameter for future court compositions.
Nor will a code of ethics be the solution to all evils, neither within the court nor within the Judiciary as a whole. Unfortunately, lawyers familiar with judges, judges and ministers work in all courts –e . Companies interested in resolving cases sponsor events in paradisiacal locations with the presence of judges from all over the country. Lawyers that are not embarrassed to sell access and proximity to judges work in all courts. Everyone has their share of ethics to comply with. These are not specific problems of the Federal Supreme Court, even though it should, as the highest body, set an example.
As the court faces pressure to adopt a code of ethics, it will continue to be challenged to respond to a series of relevant cases. , , uberization and many others make up the court’s agenda this year. It cannot be allowed that, under the general emblem of the need for self-restraint and decorum in the exercise of its function, the court cannot fail to adopt judicial decisions that may displease eventual and powerful majorities.
