Last month, the (Supreme Federal Court) carried out the trial of legal actions, filed by associations of magistrates, which question the rule of the (National Council of Justice) that regulated the . In the context of, the judgment was relevant in several aspects.
To begin with, the rule questioned by Brazilian judges, that of the CNJ, does not provide for anything exceptional: it recommends the use of respectful conduct and respect for decorum and avoiding self-promotion or demonstrations that violate administrative morality (a constitutional command provided for in art. 37 of the Constitution). It also prohibits expressing opinions on pending processes, party political statements, among other issues.
Unfortunately, however, common sense seems to be a scarce resource in the Justice system.
a judge sees nothing wrong in the relationship between a 12-year-old child and a 35-year-old adult man. Next, representatives of the judiciary complain to the STF that Brazilian judges, , are forced to pay —out of their own pocket!— for fuel, health insurance and even water and coffee. The judges barely had any snacks, .
Not surprisingly, discussing the salary cap and a transition rule with a 60-day deadline lost momentum in the public debate. Judges and prosecutors defend, without embarrassment, the maintenance of penduricalhos “as a way of solving the remuneration problem” faced by their respective professions.
In the STF, the stance is no different. Last month, ministers demonstrated, in fact, how disconnected they are from the critical gaze — with good reasons — of society in relation to the current crisis.
At the trial, the minister said that “there is no public career with as many restrictions as the judiciary”. amended, defending the right of judges to receive dividends from companies, making reference to the fact that “several judges are farmers”.
Under normal conditions, the ministers’ speeches would cause perplexity. In the current context, the shock was even greater. It is a fact that the career of the judiciary has restrictions on its members. This occurs not without reason: the proper functioning of the Justice system presupposes the credibility of its members. It is a Power that needs to be seen as fair, impersonal and transparent.
In the podcast, USP law professor Rafael Mafei explained that the restrictions provided for in the Organic Law of the Judiciary, from the 1970s, took into account the circumstances at the time it came into force. After more than five decades, it is natural that this set of standards needs to be revised and improved.
The Brazilian institutional experience shows that there is a need for greater controls and restrictions on the business and economic activity of members of the Justice system.
Furthermore, it is clear that the opaque model based exclusively on internal control does not work, and it is urgent that data and information on financial interests be made public and accessible, as we advocate in .
When they were created in 2004, the CNJ and the National Council brought the promise of modernity, transparency, control and efficiency to strengthen our institutions. All of this needs to become reality. For the good and strengthening of the institutions themselves, essential to our democracy.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
