Impeachment of STF ministers loses strength in the Senate

Although the last election increased the number of senators opposed to the judicial activism of Federal Supreme Court (STF) ministers, the re-election of Rodrigo Pacheco (PSD-MG) as president of the Senate ended any prospects of progress in relation to the impeachment proposals against ministers of the Supreme Court. Those dissatisfied were left to suggest viable alternatives for reforming the organization of the Court, such as imposing fixed terms for its members, until punishment could be discussed.

The Proposal for Amendment to the Constitution (PEC) 16/2019, by Senator Plínio Valério (PSDB-AM), is the oldest among those prepared by an acting senator, having priority in the processing. The project presented by former Senator Lasier Martins (Podemos-RS), which proposed not only a fixed term (10 years), but also a radical change in the way judges were appointed, was shelved with the start of the new legislature.

Senator Valério’s proposal suggests an eight-year term for STF ministers, with no chance of being reappointed. Today, magistrates have a lifetime mandate, with compulsory retirement at 75 years of age.

“Currently, ministers end up staying in office forever. Therefore, we need to guarantee oxygenation in the courts, something essential to democracy”, observed the Amazonian senator to People’s Gazette.

For him, mandates with a 35-year perspective, as has been happening, stifle the Supreme Court and make some ministers “feel like demigods” and “without interest in giving satisfaction to society for their work”. If approved, the PEC would affect only future members of the STF.

Valério’s text also establishes a period of one month, after the opening of a vacancy in the court, for the President of the Republic to make the nomination. If the Chief Executive failed to meet the deadline, it would be up to the Senate to do so.

“My intention at this point is only to speed up the selection process and avoid situations of embezzlement in the collegiate for long periods”, he explained.

The toucan began to receive support from colleagues, such as Hamilton Mourão (Republicanos-RS) and Sergio Moro (União Brasil-PR). Government members like Cid Gomes (PDT-CE) also do not rule out taking the issue forward.

Moro has expressed his support for reforms of the Judiciary, considering the impeachment of ministers insufficient to bring “institutional progress”. He suggests, in addition to extending the term of office of judges, in this case limited to 12 years, changes in the limits for the purposes of monocratic decisions and removing the criminal competence associated with the privileged forum from the Supreme Court, which, according to him, generates distortions.

However, the parliamentarian points out that “modernizing Justice is not confronting Justice”. “Ideally, this reform should be carried out in dialogue with the ministers of the Supreme Court and other actors in the Judiciary”, he stressed.

future movements

Legislative strategists of the senators assess that any other proposal for radical change will have the drawer as a certain destination, considering the power of those who remain in charge of the House. Under Pacheco’s leadership, they say, impeachment of Supreme Court ministers has become an impossibility.

It was no coincidence that, in his first public statement on the subject after his re-election, he ruled out any chance of opening lawsuits against members of the STF. This week, at an event held by the BTG Pactual bank, Pacheco returned to the subject by saying that “he would never allow the impeachment of a STF minister for a decision he made”.

“When people talk about the impeachment of a STF minister as if this were a solution for all evils, I say: this is not a solution for all evils,” he told the audience of investors.

However, the President of the Senate acknowledged the possibility of the House legislating on other related issues, such as limiting terms of office. Recently, he also said that discussions on the scope of monocratic decisions and on limiting the competence of the STF are “honest” and “palatable”.

Even so, senators such as Eduardo Girão (Novo-CE) and Plínio Valério continue to advocate that requests for opening a process that reach the Senate should at least be taken to the Board of Directors.

Opposition senators assess that the debate around the mandate of ministers can be a good starting point for future changes in the structure of the STF. They are betting that, in the sequence, other bills already presented in the Senate and that have a direct impact on the daily life of the STF, such as the issue of monocratic decisions, may also prosper.

The parliamentarians believe that this would be a containment for the excesses of the court, above all the recurrent invasion of competence of the other powers, as they say, with immediate effect on those who will remain there.

With regard to a deeper reform in the model for selecting ministers, which is currently done exclusively through appointment by the acting Chief Executive, the perception is that this would hardly be approved.

This would occur not only due to Pacheco’s expected resistance, but also because President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) would not relinquish this prerogative.

Model for appointing ministers is controversial

The Brazilian model for appointing Supreme Court judges is inspired by that of the United States. There, judges are appointed for lifetime terms, which means they hold their positions until retirement, resignation or death. This is a peculiar feature that was established to guarantee the independence of judges and preserve the integrity of the court over time and successive White House mandates.

In some countries, such as the United Kingdom, highest court judges serve fixed terms. And in others, like Germany, they are appointed for shorter periods, renewable after their expiration.

There is opinion in academic circles that the lifetime model for Supreme Court justices, while bringing benefits such as independence and stability, can also bring political and legal challenges and abuses. This is due to the long tenure of holders in office, which can result in a lack of adequate representation of the opinions and values ​​of today’s society.

In addition, over time, ministers can accommodate their own interpretations of the Constitution, making it difficult to adapt to social and political changes. The greatest risk is the difficulty of removing ineffective or inadequate judges, which can damage the court’s reputation and efficiency. Against these issues, there is only impeachment by the Senate.