The Federal Supreme Court (STF) will once again discuss, starting this Friday (20), the expansion of the scope of the privileged forum of authorities in the Court.
There is already a majority formed to determine that the call be maintained in the Supreme Court even after the authority leaves office.
The position maintains the rule established in 2018:
- that the forum only applies to crimes committed in the exercise of the position and due to the functions related to it.
The expansion proposal establishes that the jurisdiction continues in the STF even after removal from office, “even if the investigation or criminal action is initiated after its exercise has ceased”.
Virtual
The discussion on the topic takes place in the virtual plenary. In April, the trial was halted due to a request for review (more time for analysis) from Minister André Mendonça.
A new session starts at 11am on Friday (20th) and runs until September 27th.
In the virtual trial format, there is no debate between the ministers, who present their votes in an electronic system.
Example
The majority already formed in April was one of the factors that led Minister André Mendonça to the investigation involving allegations of harassment against the former Minister of Human Rights.
Under the current rule, Almeida lost his jurisdiction in the STF when he became (PT) on September 6th. When someone loses jurisdiction in the Supreme Court, the case, in general, goes to the first instance of Justice.
Votes
So far, six ministers have voted to change the current understanding and expand the criteria for a politician to be judged by the STF.
The vote that formed the majority was that of Minister Luís Roberto Barroso, president of the Court.
In addition to Barroso, the following have voted so far:
- Gilmar Mendes — who proposed re-discussing the topic —,
- Cristiano Zanin,
- Flavio Dino,
- Toffoli Dias,
- and Alexandre de Moraes.
Ministers still need to vote:
- André Mendonça,
- Nunes Marques,
- Luiz Fux,
- Carmen Lucia,
- and Edson Fachin.
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.
For members of the higher courts, the Federal Audit Court (TCU), ambassadors, and commanders of the Navy, Army and Air Force, the jurisdiction is for common and responsible crimes.
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.
Gilmar’s re-discussion
In his vote, Gilmar defended maintaining central aspects of the central rule established in 2018 to establish the forum for the trial of crimes committed in the exercise of office and as a result of it, even after removal from office, even if the investigation or criminal action is initiated later. of its exercise having ceased.
The minister is in favor of the fact that leaving the position only changes the competence in cases of crimes committed before the person took office or, even, acts that are not related to their exercise.
The dean also said that the forum is a prerogative of the position, not a personal privilege. He also highlighted that, precisely for this reason, she must remain even after her mandate ends.
Leaving the position does not obscure the reasons that encouraged the granting of original jurisdiction to the Courts. What happens is exactly the opposite. It is at this moment that opponents of the former holder of the political position are better able to exert influence to their detriment, and the forum prerogative becomes more necessary to avoid persecution and slander.
Gilmar Mendes
In the minister’s assessment, accompanied by his colleagues, this justification is even more appropriate in the current context.
“In a highly polarized society, marked by the radicalization of political groups and revanchism on both sides, the forum prerogative becomes even more fundamental for the stability of democratic institutions,” he stated.
