Amid intense questioning of ministers of the (Supreme Federal Court) in the public debate, including the defense of the creation of a code of ethics in the court, the minister announced a measure that, in his view, would solve “concrete problems”.
Although there are differences in the analyzes of each of them, experts consulted by Sheet share the view that the minister’s movement denotes an individual, and not an institutional, agenda – which would involve internal dialogue and participation of the current president of the court, the minister.
They also see the proposals as generic, despite agreeing that many of the problems presented by Dino, such as the slowness of Justice, in fact deserve attention. Furthermore, several items would require approval from Congress, which would not only require coordination with other Powers but also signals a more distant horizon.
In addition to the list of suggestions being poorly detailed and generic, the STF, which has been the protagonist of the political crisis involving , becomes almost a supporting role in the proposals.
Of 15 items listed by Dino, in an article published on Monday (20) on the ICL Notícias website, the Supreme Court is expressly mentioned in only one, in which he defends the “revision of the constitutional powers of the STF and the higher courts”, without specifying, however, what that would mean.
Another axis talks about “the composition and powers of the National Councils of Justice and the Public Ministry, so that they are more efficient in monitoring and punishing illegalities”. The CNJ, however, does not have the power to supervise Supreme Court ministers.
Dino also defends the “proper processing of processes in the Electoral Court, avoiding the undue extension currently observed, causing legal uncertainty and turmoil in the political sphere”. This item, despite appearing restricted to the electoral field, brings a diagnosis that is sometimes pointed out as belonging to the STF as well.
“It will change the powers of the STF or STJ [Superior Tribunal de Justiça]but in what sense? Are we going to transform the Supreme Court into a constitutional court?” asks Elival da Silva Ramos, professor of constitutional law at USP (University of São Paulo) and former attorney general of the state of São Paulo.
For him, Dino’s proposal raises more questions than answers, given the lack of detail, and it would hardly involve reducing the court’s powers. The professor also highlights the lack of articulation and assesses that the measures indicated are unsatisfactory compared to what society currently demands from the court. “It seems a bit like a smokescreen,” he says.
In addition to it not being clear what exactly Dino defends when he talks about reviewing the powers of the Supreme Court, this change would require the approval of an amendment to the Constitution in Congress. The approval of a code of conduct applicable to STF ministers, as well as civil society groups, jurists and businesspeople, could be approved following a deliberation by the court itself.
In the opinion of Insper professor Diego Werneck, Dino’s article reproduces some of the STF’s vices, drawing a parallel with the individualized actions of ministers through monocratic and preliminary decisions. “It’s a minister alone, launching a list of themes and proposals”, he summarizes.
He highlights that, although the list of problems listed is broad, there are no proposals on the behavior of judges, with the exception of suggestions such as increasing the penalty for some cases, such as cases of corruption.
“We know concretely that there are problems, and you have concrete proposals on the table that only depend on the court. And, interestingly, the proposal [de Dino] says almost nothing about the issues within the court’s reach,” says Werneck. “The Supreme Court is largely absent from this discussion of the minister’s proposal.”
FGV Direito SP professor Eloísa Machado classifies the text as a search to reposition the debate, in the sense of treating the ethical issue as a problem for the entire Judiciary. “[O artigo] considers the current criticisms made against the STF, but prevents the court from becoming a target, especially for those who want to use criticism to weaken the court’s existence”, he states.
Despite seeing the merit of the article as recognizing problems in the Justice system, she sees the proposals themselves as quite general and some of them as problematic.
The professor also points out that some of the topics could be addressed by a bill initiated by the Supreme Court itself, such as those dealing with disciplinary procedures and punishments.
Political scientist and USP professor Maria Tereza Sadek, in turn, compares the lack of articulation in Dino’s movement to what was seen in the reform promoted in 2004, when there was dialogue between the three Powers.
“One thing is what the Supreme Court can do on its own, without needing legislative approval,” she says, highlighting that, in this hypothesis, it would be necessary to reach a degree of internal consensus in the court that currently seems non-existent.
On the other hand, Sadek highlights the need for coordination so that other measures can be approved. “And this is complicated, especially because we are on the eve of an election.”
For constitutional law professor at UFPR (Federal University of Paraná) Vera Karam de Chueiri, who is an advisor to the Presidency’s Public Ethics Commission and also a member of the STF’s study commission, even though the themes proposed by Dino are relevant, it would be important for there to be an alignment with the court’s current agenda.
“I think Minister Dino’s proposals for this major reform are very commendable, but it cannot cast a shadow on what is currently at the center of the institutional debate, of the debate with society, which is the issue of the code of ethics.”
