Moras says that Cid’s plea is valid and is in the final stretch – 12/12/2023 – Power

Minister Alexandre de Moraes, of the STF (Supreme Federal Court), criticized the so-called PEC (proposed amendment to the Constitution) of monocratic decisions, which limits the individual actions of magistrates in this and other courts in the country.

In an interview with SheetMoraes defended the importance of individual deliberations for the Judiciary system, citing the hypothetical example of a provisional measure that allowed children aged 12 and over to buy rifles.

“It’s one thing for the rapporteur to issue an injunction: he suspends it immediately and puts it up for approval. Even if one minister asks for approval, another asks for approval, no child will buy the gun. Now, if this PEC passes, the rapporteur cannot suspend it. Then the rapporteur immediately puts in his vote to overturn the provisional measure. A minister asks for a view, 90 days. When it is returned, another minister asks for a view, another 90 days. In these 180 days, how many 12-year-old children will buy rifles?”, he asked.

Approved in November by the Senate – and currently being processed in the Chamber –, the PEC establishes deadlines for requests for review in collegial judgments of the Judiciary and determines that individual decisions cannot suspend laws approved in Congress and other legislative houses and sanctioned by the Executive. For this to happen, only a collegial decision must be made.

Only the president of the STF would be authorized to make decisions alone during the period of the Judiciary recess. Even so, it would be necessary to place the issue under analysis by the court’s plenary session within 30 days.

Today, ministers can make monocratic decisions on any topic and annul, through injunctions, any law at the federal, state or municipal level. The decision is automatically included in the agenda of the next virtual session, according to a change in the Supreme Court’s rules adopted in 2022 under the presidency of then minister Rosa Weber.

“With all due respect to those who defend it, it is something very unrealistic. Because it ends up hurting the judge’s own general power of caution. We have already changed our rules so that every injunction is immediately endorsed by the plenary. That’s right, because it is a collegiate body. The strength of the Supreme Court is the strength of all its members”, said Moraes.

The minister highlighted that the PEC has no relation to the 8th of January, “because it foresees the need for a collegial injunction to rule out constitutionality or even to rule out acts of the presidency of the Houses and the President of the Republic”, but used an example from that episode to describe the importance of the injunction in the judicial process.

“In the case of urgency, the rapporteur issues the injunction and then immediately puts it up for endorsement. As I did on January 8th, from the 8th to the 9th, I determined the measures, and, on the 9th to the 10th, the Supreme Court endorsed them. Well, imagine if it couldn’t issue an injunction, let’s wait for the coup to materialize until the plenary. That’s not Justice, and I’m sure the National Congress will know how to analyze these issues.”

“What we all want,” he added, “us and Congress, is for the Supreme Court’s position to be collegial. But we cannot reverse the natural order of things.”

Moraes reiterated his support for Lieutenant Colonel Mauro Cid’s accusation closed by the Federal Police and relativized the assessment of prosecutor Carlos Frederico Santos – coordinator of the Strategic Group to Combat Anti-Democratic Acts of the PGR (Attorney General’s Office) and responsible for the 8/ 1– that the piece is weak.

“The PF made the statement, all the legal requirements were present, I myself ordered my instructing judge to hold a hearing to find out about the whistleblower’s willingness to actually make that statement, the hearing was recorded to ensure that he was not being pressured, and From then on, he has been presenting the evidence, as is done in all accusations”, said Moraes.

“Dr. Carlos Frederico said this at first, then said that it was his responsibility to look for evidence that would corroborate the accusation. The accusation is valid, the whistleblower has a legal obligation to point out evidence that confirms the accusation, otherwise it will have no effect. If the whistleblower does not provide evidence, if he does not prove what he said, his statement will not be effective. The Public Prosecutor’s Office has already requested a series of steps to reinforce what is written in the statement and I believe that this investigation will be concluded in a short time. “

Asked whether the noise was due to the fact that the complaint was closed by the Federal Police and not by the Federal Public Ministry, Moraes stated: “There is a more corporate than institutional problem in the question of who can carry out award-winning collaborations. I say this very calmly because I was a member of the Public Ministry, I was a São Paulo prosecutor for more than ten years, I also worked in the Security Secretariat, then I worked with the police and voted in the Supreme Court decision which, by 10 to 1, determined that the police can carry out [delações]. So it is not exclusive to the Public Prosecutor’s Office to make the accusation.”

The judge considered how “very good so far” the work of prosecutor Carlos Frederico Santos, but I did not want to predict whether he will be kept in the role after the change of command at the PGR (Augusto Aras leaves, Paulo Gonet will take over).

“The complaints were filed quickly, he carried out this investigation very well and continues to conduct criminal investigations in relation to the activities of the Military Police, he has been investigating the financiers… It is a professional and competent performance. Now, whether or not he should be maintained, then it depends on the attorney general and eventually, if he is invited, on him.”

Regarding Gonet, Moraes once again praised the prosecutor’s appointments to the PGR and Flávio Dino to the Supreme Court.

“I think they are two public agents lato sensu, of high caliber, both Professor Paulo Gonet and Flávio Dino, I have known them for a long time. I have been friends with Minister Flávio Dino since 2005, I am an advisor to the National Council of Justice, minister Flávio Dino was an assistant judge to the then president of the CNJ, minister [Nelson] Jobim, so we became friends from there, he is an extremely prepared, serious person, who moves well in the legal and political worlds, this experience in the Supreme Court is important”, he said.

“In the same way, Professor Paulo Gonet. For years and years we participated in congresses, we were colleagues in the Public Ministry, he from the Federal Ministry, I from the State of São Paulo, we are both constitutionalists, we wrote together and here at the TSE he worked with me all this time .”

Moraes minimized his (and minister Gilmar Mendes’) influence on Lula’s choices: “I was really very happy with the nominations, but the nominations are from the President of the Republic. Minister of the Supreme Court and president of the TSE don’t get involved in nominations.”