Minister Nunes Marques, from the (STF), paralyzed, this Friday (27), the judgment on expanding the scope of the privileged forum of authorities in the Court.
The magistrate requested a review (more time for analysis). According to the court’s rules, he has up to 90 days to deal with the case.
The discussion came to a halt two other times: in and in .
There is already a need to expand the rule, establishing that the forum is maintained in the Supreme Court even after the authority leaves office.
Ministers Gilmar Mendes, Luís Roberto Barroso, Cristiano Zanin, Flávio Dino, Dias Toffoli and Alexandre de Moraes voted for this position.
So far, ministers André Mendonça and Edson Fachin disagree with the expansion.
In addition to Nunes, ministers Luiz Fux and Cármen Lúcia still need to vote.
Expansion of the forum
The majority of votes for the expansion of the forum were formed in April. On that occasion, Mendonça asked for a view. The case was resumed on September 20, with the — and now, paralyzed again with the position of Nunes Marques.
The proposal that has a majority establishes that the forum continues in the STF even after removal from office, “even if the investigation or criminal action is initiated after its exercise has ceased”.
How is the rule
The STF has the power to prosecute and judge, in common crimes, the President of the Republic, the vice-president, deputies and senators, ministers and the Attorney General of the Republic.
As for common and responsible crimes, the jurisdiction is to judge members of the higher courts, the Federal Audit Court (TCU), ambassadors, and commanders of the Navy, Army and Air Force.
The current rule on forum in the Supreme Court was defined in 2018.
For the case to be processed by the STF, the crime must have been committed while in office and as a result of the role held.
If the public agent loses his mandate, the case goes to the first instance.
The only exception is when the case is already in the final stage of processing; In this situation, the case remains in the STF.
In 2022, the Court decided that it continues to have jurisdiction in cases of “cross mandate” — that is, when the congressman investigated or prosecuted for an alleged crime is elected to another Legislative House during the investigation or criminal action.
