The experts interviewed by ‘Estadão’ argue that the Brazilian model, of wide transparency, differs from that of the United States and European countries
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on Tuesday 5 he defended that the votes of the judges of the Federal Court were secret after having seen the minister Christian Zanin becoming the target of attacks by government supporters for positions contrary to issues considered progressive. The Brazilian model – of extensive transparency of the judiciary – differs from that of the United States and most European countries. For the jurists heard by the Estadaothe national system facilitates access to the judiciary, but can weaken the Court.
The positions that the former lawyer of the president of Lava Jato have adopted in delicate sentences for the Court (such as drugs and crimes against LGBTQIA+ people) have placed him in the target of criticism of the movements that make up the base of the government. Evangelical and conservative lawmakers, however, praised Zanin.
Lula defends the secret ballot of STF ministers after leftist criticism of Cristiano Zanin
The secret ballot, according to the professor, also prevents cases of corruption in the Court. “There is no way of knowing whether or not the magistrate voted in that direction. The ministers do not reveal their opinions, their tendencies, their eventual manifestations or judgments”.
Professor member of the Justice and Constitution Center of the FGV-SP, Rubens Glèzer, says the president’s proposal responds to the issue of ministers’ healthy exposure to public debate. Glezer emphasizes that this discussion should separate what constitutes a prosecution, which must be investigated by the proper authorities, and the criticisms received against the works that help maintain the institution.
“Not all criticism is an attack. The criticism that comes from society, from academia, if reasoned and serious, serves to improve the institution, so that it improves its practices because it is an institution with almost no other control mechanism. This helps the Supreme Whenever the Supreme Court has heard these pertinent criticisms and acted upon them, they have done well,” he said.
Other countries
We WE, Supreme Court votes are formed by majority or unanimity. At the end of the session, the judges meet in a separate room to discuss the case, and then the decision is announced on behalf of the entire court. If the sentence is not unanimous, the Court sets out the difference.
For Felippe Mendonça, a specialist in constitutional law, knowing how each minister votes is important to safeguard legal certainty. “Our current struggle is precisely due to the need to have greater calculability of legal risk in the Brazilian judiciary. No one invests where he does not know what the legal consequences of his actions will be,” she told Broadcast Politico.
Professor Elival Ramos, professor of Constitutional Law at the University of São Paulo (USP), believes that the president correctly identified the problem, but was wrong in attributing the cause to the identification of votes. In the diagnosis of the professor, who is dedicated to the study of so-called “judicial activism”, the reason for the animosity against the ministers of the Supreme Court is the political role that the Court has assumed in recent years.
For him, the adoption of a secret ballot model in Brazil, as is the case for example in the United States and France, is unfeasible. In the US Supreme Court all votes are cast jointly, i.e. ministers argue behind closed doors to reach the final outcome. The reason for each vote is not published, as is the case in Brazil. For Ramos, the difficulty in adopting the model here is the lack of time to seek consensus. “The difference is that the Supreme Court (USA) hears very few cases, less than 100 cases a year. In Brazil there are thousands.”
Rabih Nasserprofessor of international law at the Fundação Getúlio Vargas (FGV) in São Paulo, explains that in the USA “only judges are allowed in the conference room (Justice Conference) to decide the case. All magistrates have the opportunity to express their point of view on the case”. The names of the ministers who have adopted each position will be disclosed only after the hearing of the trial.
Basso mentions other countries that follow this same system: “United Kingdom, Australia, France. In most countries where the democratic rule of law is solid, it works like this. Brazil is very late, because this system of televised trials (broadcast on TV Justiça and on the YouTube channels of the Courts) leaves the Supreme Court vulnerable to pressure and corruption”. The professor also stresses the protection of ministers, who, according to her, are susceptible to attack because of their positions.
Esteves also talks about the case of Holland. “The final decision is attributed to the Court and there is a severe limit to the publication of dissenting votes. Even if a minister does not agree with a particular sentence, he is forbidden from making known his contrary vote”.
One of the symptoms of this complaint by STF ministers is the number of impeachment requests filed against them in the federal Senate. As shown the EstadaoAlexandre de Moraes, who brings together most of the sensitive processes of past management in attendance in his office, has 40 claims filed against him.
Transparency in the Supreme Court
The work of the Brazilian Supreme Court can be accompanied by Brazilians with a simple click on the remote control. Since August 2002, TV Justiça has been broadcasting the judgments of the Plenary live on both television and digital channels. Under the administration of the STF itself, the station was created after the approval of the Law 10.461/2002by then minister Marco Aurélio, in the post of interim president during the government Fernando Henrique Cardoso (FHC).
The Court’s official website specifies that the channel has the function of “filling a gap” left by commercial broadcasters with respect to news related to judicial matters. “The station’s main objective is to raise awareness in Brazilian society in favor of the independence of the judiciary, justice, ethics, democracy and social development and make people aware of their rights and duties,” he says.
In addition to watching trial sessions, citizens can also follow ministerial votes in the Court’s virtual environmental trial system. Both the report and the position of each magistrate during the hearings are available on the platform in real time.
According to the STF, the action aims to “give greater transparency and publicity to the procedure and allow lawyers, prosecutors and defenders to act in electronically held sessions in a similar way to what they would in face-to-face sessions”.
Understanding Lula’s statement
This Tuesday 5 the president Lula he argued that the company should not know the votes of STF ministers, as a way to control “animosity” against Brazilian institutions. “If I could give one piece of advice, it would be this: Society doesn’t necessarily have to know how a Supreme Court justice votes. You know, I think the kid has to vote and nobody needs to know. The majority voted 5 to 4, 6 to 4 , 3 to 2. No one must know,” he said in the program “Conversa com o Presidente”, a weekly live broadcast produced by Empresa Brasil de Comunicação (EBC).
The PT’s statement came after that of the STF minister Christian Zanin, which he appointed to the post, has been criticized by the very ranks of the PT for positions contrary to issues considered progressive and social. Last week, in the first votes in the Court, the magistrate ruled against the decriminalization of drugs and the equating of homophobic and transphobic acts to crimes of racial injury.
After the case, Zanin also received a sting from the National Directorate of the Workers’ Party, which defended the Supreme Court’s action in favor of the “reaffirmation of the rights of indigenous peoples”, with an “action in defense of civilization”, concerning the discussion of times. After the criticisms, in homage to the Lula base, the magistrate voted against the thesis defended by the ruralists according to which the indigenous people would have had the right only on the lands they occupied on October 5, 1988, the date of promulgation of the federal Constitution.
Source: Terra
Rose James is a Gossipify movie and series reviewer known for her in-depth analysis and unique perspective on the latest releases. With a background in film studies, she provides engaging and informative reviews, and keeps readers up to date with industry trends and emerging talents.
