of ministers of the (Supreme Federal Court) to remove from the report on the Banco Master case process generated doubts and different interpretations from experts heard by the Sheetwhich indicates a lack of transparency in the decision, contrary to what the Constitution recommends.
Some of the experts say that it is not clear whether the magistrate just “gave up on the report” and whether he will continue voting in the process. They are also divided on whether the decision was made in a secret meeting, with some feeling that the process was outside the rite, and others finding it justifiable given the context.
A Sheet The Supreme Court questioned whether the minister will continue voting in the process and how the court responds to criticisms about a possible lack of publicity and the adequacy of the meeting’s procedures, but the court did not respond.
On Thursday (12), the Supreme Court released a note in which it announced that Toffoli would step down from the rapporteur, at the request of the magistrate himself. The decision was linked to the “smooth progress of the processes” and the court’s “high institutional interests”.
The text pointed out “that there is no basis for the allegation of suspicion”, and colleagues expressed personal support for Toffoli. They also recognized the validity of the acts and processes linked to the case and cited “the absence of suspicion or impediment”. A, after draw.
The meeting took place after the minister was reluctant to declare himself a suspect in the case, even after a company that sold shares to a fund linked to Daniel Vorcaro, owner of . Furthermore, he informed the Supreme Court that the minister was mentioned in messages found on the banker’s cell phone. Controversial decisions made by the minister throughout the process are also part of the context, such as the imposition of secrecy on the evidence.
According to Ricardo Gueiros, law professor at Ufes (Federal University of Espírito Santo), the court’s internal regulations expressly provide for secret administrative meetings, but the measure is unusual for evaluating cases of suspicion of ministers.
“The normal procedure is for one of the parts of the process to raise suspicion. One of the ministers is designated to report this allegation of suspicion, and the group decides whether the minister is a suspect or not, but in a session that, in principle, would not be confidential”, says Gueiros.
For him, it is not clear whether Toffoli will step away from the case or if “something was done different from what the procedural rite provides, because there is no provision in the law for ‘giving up the rapporteur'”.
Therefore, Gueiros understands that the scenario is one of lack of clarity as to whether the minister will continue voting in the process.
According to Gustavo Justino de Oliveira, law professor at , the meeting of ministers appears to have been outside the established procedure for formal requests for suspicion. He makes the reservation that his assessment is based on what is known about the case, since the process is confidential.
Oliveira understands that the scenario mirrors an “attempt to stop the bleeding” in the Supreme Court resulting from the crisis with Toffoli. “There was no trial as such of suspicion, but an attempt to convince [de Toffoli, para sair da relatoria] to safeguard the acts of the process already carried out”, he states.
The expert also says that it is not clear whether Toffoli just stepped away from the rapporteur, but will continue voting. “If he has not declared himself a suspect or impeded, in theory he continues [no processo]. He may participate in the trial and subsequent decisions as a member of the court.”
For Álvaro Palma de Jorge, professor at FGV Direito Rio, there are doubts about what happened at the ministers’ meeting, because it resulted from a confidential process, the one that analyzes the Banco Master case.
He considers that the PF material against Toffoli generated an argument of suspicion, the merit of which was denied by the ministers. They, however, would have accepted Toffoli’s request to redistribute the process. The expert speaks in theory because it is not public who decided what at the meeting —which now has leaked excerpts— and the details of what would actually have been defined.
“As the process, due to the secrecy of the main process, is confidential, you cannot see the decision to know exactly what was contained in it.” For Álvaro Palma de Jorge, however, the secrecy of the meeting is justifiable because it is part of a confidential process. Also for him, it cannot be said, with what was released by the STF, whether Toffoli will continue in the case or not.
“We don’t know whether he will participate or not because we don’t know the full story of this demonstration,” he says.
For the specialist, the ideal is for the confidentiality of Banco Master’s main process to fall. “The new rapporteur should provide transparency to everything possible.”
For Carolina Cyrillo, professor of constitutional law at UFRJ (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro), the secret meeting between ministers is appropriate in the context, which, in her opinion, would indicate that the minister declared himself a suspect and will no longer participate in the case.
“In light of the evidence, he [Toffoli] understood that, from that moment on, he would become incompatible to act on the case, which is the minister’s prerogative. If he suffered pressure from colleagues, embarrassment from others, that is part of the political game. It happens in all courts”, he says.
