After months of scathing criticism directed at the president of the (Supreme Federal Court), the minister elected his colleague as his new rival in the court, due to his colleague’s stance in conducting the investigation into .
Mendonça, in turn, told people close to him that he saw the public criticism made by the dean as an attempt to discredit the investigations into financial fraud. Because of this, he already foresees a schedule of clashes in the Second Panel, where the next chapters of the case will be judged.
In the STF’s correlation of forces, Gilmar and Mendonça are part of opposing wings. The dean has the support of ministers , and , while the Master’s rapporteur is supported by , , and Fachin. The minister moves between the two groups.
Gilmar is the only one from his group who is part of the Second Panel, and for this reason he was isolated in the vote in which it was decided to maintain the, respectively father and cousin of the former banker, owner of Master.
In the session on June 16, the dean said that plea bargains cannot be obtained in pressure environments and suggested that Mendonça had, unduly, interfered in the negotiations with Vorcaro. The agreements offered by the former banker were rejected by the PF () and the (Attorney General’s Office).
“The direction of a plea bargain to reach predetermined political targets not only tarnishes the voluntariness of the alleged agreement but also completely discredits any product that results from the supposed collaboration”, said Gilmar, who compares the case to Operation Lava Jato, marked by questions about the actions of the responsible authorities.
The backdrop to Gilmar’s criticism was news that Mendonça had rejected the possibility of ratifying an agreement in which Vorcaro would hand over certain authorities and spare others, such as Supreme Court ministers. The Master’s rapporteur even spoke publicly: “They lost their modesty. They wanted to make selective denunciations. In my face.”
Mendonça also responded to Gilmar, during the session, that the case on trial was not related to Lava Jato, but to “the biggest financial fraud in the history of our country”. He agreed with the dean on the impossibility of ordering an arrest with the aim of obtaining a plea. “It would be absurd, and I’m not good at work like that.”
At the end of May, Gilmar —although without mentioning Mendonça by name— had already spoken out against what he classifies as “criminal-judicial authoritarianism”, in which the prison regime is defined by the judge according to the willingness of the person being investigated to inform.
With Mendonça’s approval, Vorcaro was removed from the Federal Prison of Brasília to the superintendence of the PF, in a move at the time interpreted as a . Now that the proposals have been denied, the return of the former banker to the previous prison unit is pending analysis by the minister.
On Monday (22), Gilmar once again criticized Mendonça in public. When interviewed by TV Cultura’s Roda Viva program, he said that his colleague acted “improperly” when receiving Vorcaro’s lawyers. “The law does not allow the rapporteur to participate in the denunciation. The agreement is between the Public Ministry [ou a PF] and the whistleblower. So, there is already one here.”
Mendonça’s assistants claim that he receives lawyers routinely, under the terms set out in Loman (Organic Law of the Judiciary) and the statute of the OAB (Brazilian Bar Association), and reinforce that the minister will not fuel the public clash, but will continue his work independently.
These same interlocutors argue that Gilmar may have violated Loman, which prohibits magistrates from speaking out about cases pending trial or making derogatory judgments about orders, votes or sentences from judicial bodies, which would include decisions by other colleagues.
While the tension with Mendonça escalates, the dean signaled a truce with Fachin. Gilmar said he did not go public to defend his peers about the implications of the Master case, he defended it and proposed one for ministers.
The dean also sent a message to Fachin charging the president of the court with the number of times he had paralyzed trials of relevance to society, such as mineral exploration on indigenous lands. Through WhatsApp, Gilmar even accused Fachin of . There was no response.
Recently, however, both made gestures of peace. Fachin decided to implement a study group to discuss one and received signs of receptivity from Gilmar. Jurists close to the dean, Dino and Moraes were nominated as components — a nod to consensus in a divided court.
Although Gilmar is also on the Roda Viva program, the assessment of the STF’s administrative leadership is that the speeches were less acidic than usual and focused more on the “timing” of the proposal than on a disagreement about the merits of the rules.
Despite mutual signals, the peace agreement between Gilmar and Fachin is considered temporary. Interlocutors of the two ministers assess that the friction between them is likely to intensify again when the proposal to implement the code of conduct in the Supreme Court begins to advance. Minister Cármen Lúcia, appointed rapporteur of the text, must deliver a draft proposal after the elections.
