Home Justice The Brazilian Supreme Court in the Bank of the Defendants

The Brazilian Supreme Court in the Bank of the Defendants

75
0
SHARE

 

Judge Dias Toffoli’s decision to open an investigation into fake news, threats and offenses against the Court and the conduct of this investigation by Minister Alexandre de Moraes opened a discussion that from time to time returns in Brazil: the possibility of promoting the impeachment of a member of the Supreme Court of the country.

On Tuesday, Apr. 16th, when Moraes’ decisions to censor two digital vehicles and to determine search and seizure in addresses linked to critics of the FTS were already known, parliamentarians began the joints to file a request to prevent both ministers: President Dias Toffoli and court member Alexandre de Moraes.

The move, it seems, should cool after Alexandre de Moraes revoked his decision to censor the report, which accused Toffoli of participating in corrupt activities along with former president Lula da Silva, now convicted of corruption.

However, although Alexandre de Moraes has revoked the absurd decision to censor the press, which is predicted to be illegal by the Brasilia Constitution, he still maintains a threat to maintain an arbitrary investigation against people who have manifested themselves in relation to the acts practiced in the past , by the president of the Supreme Court.

Criticized by some movements in support of Operation Car Wash, the minister Gilmar Mendes has already been the target of several requests for impeachment.

It is, however, a long and extremely bureaucratic process, with a series of procedures that indicate the preference for stability in the Constitution. The hypothesis of impeachment in the FTS is reserved to few and serious cases. The rule that establishes the procedures is foreseen in the same Law that condemned the former presidents of the Republic Fernando Collor de Mello and Dilma Rousseff.

In an impeachment against a member of the Supreme Court, however, there are some special requirements. The process is exclusively regulated by the Senate, without the involvement of the Chamber of Deputies. At the trial stage, as in the cases against heads of the Executive, the session is commanded by the president of the Supreme Court. The law opens the exception so that, if this is the case, assume another minister as a substitute.

The law also establishes another difference: if Minister Ricardo Lewandowski’s decision to “slice” the trial of Dilma, allowing senators to maintain the former president’s political rights, was controversial, in the Supreme’s case the rule necessarily provides, separate deliberations.

In the first, parliamentarians decide whether or not to revoke the mandate of the STF minister. In the second, they decide to determine the time of removal from the public service.