OAB needed to remind Moraes about the Law Statute, says jurist

The note from the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB) to Minister Alexandre de Moraes, of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), published this Thursday (9), had repercussions in the legal community.

For jurist Dário Júnior, doctor in Procedural Law, the OAB “had to remind” Moraes about the prerogatives of lawyers, after the minister prevented oral arguments from a defender during the face-to-face trial of a regulatory appeal in a request for habeas corpus.

“It was necessary for the president of the OAB to remember that the Statute of Advocacy and the Brazilian Bar Association is a federal law (Law 8,906/94) and as such, by simple hierarchical criteria of interpretation it must prevail over court regulations”, he said The People’s Gazette.

Dário also added that the OAB’s position “is in favor of society and in favor of the democratic criminal process”. “The procedural guarantees of contradictory and broad defense are inherent to our constitutional system and cannot be relaxed”, he declared.

In the note, the OAB maintained that it does not agree with “the empowerment of the courts” over the other Powers and that it will continue to insist that the STF respect the prerogatives of the legal profession.

In the assessment of the Brazilian Right-Wing Lawyers Movement, the OAB’s note “marks a change in the entity’s tone in relation to the court and Minister Moraes’ own work.” “Let’s wait for the scenes in the next chapters. There was no lack of warning”, wrote the movement.

Constitutional lawyer André Marsiglia, specialized in freedom of expression and press, also took a position on the OAB note. He explained that the Order’s position is to refute Moraes’ statement that “oral arguments are not permitted in appeals, as per the guidance of the STF regulations, which are a specific rule and prevail over a general rule.”

According to the lawyer, “the specific rule prevails over the general rule when the specific rule is not unconstitutional.” “If the rules unduly restrict the right of defense, it should not prevail over the general rule of the Constitution that guarantees the adversarial process and the lawyer’s freedom of professional expression before the Court”, explained Marsiglia.