Pacheco says the Senate will prioritize changes to the STF in 2024

The president of the Senate, Rodrigo Pacheco, stated this Friday (22) that the house will prioritize in 2024 the bills that change the functioning of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), in another chapter of the crisis established between the Legislative and the Judiciary since the Court began to judge cases such as the decriminalization of drug possession, the time frame for the demarcation of indigenous lands, the beginning of discussions on abortion, among other topics.

The discussion of these agendas led to an offensive by Congress against the STF, alleging that there was a usurpation of powers and caused senators to approve restrictions on the Court’s monocratic decisions. The text, however, still needs to pass through the Chamber of Deputies and be sanctioned by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT).

Pacheco stated that he intends to address issues such as raising the minimum age for appointment to a vacancy on the Court and establishing a mandate for ministers to act next year – which is supported by the new minister Flávio Dino, who takes office in the February 22, 2024.

“I think that the Supreme Court has its power defined in the Constitution, which was designed by the Legislature. Changes in the power of the Supreme Court must also be made by the Legislature. This is normal,” said Pacheco.

Rodrigo Pacheco considered the ministers’ reaction to the changes as “disproportionate”, when they attacked the senators, saying that the “STF does not tolerate intimidation” and that parliamentarians are “unequivocal moral pygmies”.

The term of office for ministers, said Pacheco, should be eight years based on a Proposed Amendment to the Constitution (PEC) by senator Plínio Valério (PSDB-AM). He also stated that another PEC, that of drugs, should be debated by the Constitution and Justice Commission (CCJ) in February.

Senator Efraim Filho’s proposal will “make it clear that the quantity of drugs is independent, will generate legal consequences, but that possession or possession for use does not admit imprisonment”.