There is no longer any reasonable dissent about the procedural ungovernability of the STF: the individual disability powers, the requests for review, the monocratic precautions that bypass the plenary. A casebycase procedural dynamic that deviates from legal standards. Hence a multiplier of legal uncertainty. They continue to decide what they want and when they want, depending on the interests and constraints that influence them. Or not.
There is no longer any reasonable dissent about the ethical debacle of the STF ministers. Only ministers and sycophants of ministers disagree. We have already learned to recognize, classify and even ridicule a variety of promiscuous behaviors, which then become normalized and deepened. We just didn’t have the ability to create embarrassment. Much less control and legal sanctions.
Ethics and procedures are the main problems of the STF.
The National Congress began to revive some debates about procedural reforms. There are currently three ideas on the agenda: the introduction of repetition and time limits for review applications; Preventing monocratic decisions in the control of constitutionality (something that Law 9868/99 already prohibits in Article 10 but which the STF ignores); Grant Congress the authority to revoke STF decisions.
This STF reformist broth has been accumulating for at least a decade under the illconceived and trivialized slogan of “judicial activism.” It was later tweaked and reformulated by Bolsonaro and his soldiers, who interpret the constitution through the lens of basement hermeneutics. From there, they wrested power for “constitutional military intervention.” And Ives signed up.
Despite the atmosphere of revenge in the air, because of what the STF did right or wrong and not alone to contain a coup, and despite the worst underground intentions of its enemies, the first two suggestions are good ones. As simple as necessary.
STF ministers are trying to create confusion between “limiting the powers of the STF” and “limiting the powers of STF ministers” with their unseemly habit of inserting themselves into public debates and making constitutional judgments into the microphone before the case even arrives. Because it is urgent to limit the powers of ministers.
If this helps curb the ungovernability of the process, what to do with the ethical debacle? How to neutralize the celebration of promiscuity in the gardens of Lago Sul and the salons of Lisbon?
The US Supreme Court was persuaded to write its code of ethics for much less money. The nine justices said the code only served to “avoid misunderstandings” as it merely “constitutes the codification of principles that have always governed our conduct.” Lawyers there consider the step to be important, even if there is no implementation mechanism.
The Brazilian judiciary is already subject to ethical standards. The Organic Law of the Judiciary already states, among other things, that judges must act independently and “maintain impeccable behavior in public and private life”.
The Code of Ethics for the Judiciary already states that building “society’s trust in its moral authority” strengthens legitimacy. It defines that the impartial judge “avoids all types of conduct that may reflect favoritism, predisposition or prejudice.” The National Judicial Council attempted to formulate these principles in more detail and create a transparency policy on the abuse of “lectures”, but the proposal was rejected.
There are ethical standards, but the STF ignores them. No other argument than authoritarian arrogance. It is not surprising that behavior is more permissive, despite the abundance of norms (which are not “just ethical,” as they are also provided by law).
There are also no standards that say: “This isn’t possible”. There is no authority that says, “You will be punished for your violation.” There are no checks and balances. There is only confidence in the decency, in the selfrespect, in the common sense of a minister. These moral regulators have worked better at other times. They are as irrelevant today as ever.
Editorial by Sheet Days ago he quoted a maxim of judicial authority: “It is not enough that judges are ethical they must appear ethical.” The STF has responded: “It is not enough that many STF ministers are unethical they must appear unethical .” A big spoonful of tea to the enemies of democracy and legal protection.