After the nomination of Flávio Dino to occupy a seat on the Supreme Federal Court, it is inevitable to reflect on the direction the Court has been taking. When it comes to Brazilian politics, the justices of the Supreme Federal Court are rarely left out of the conversation. They have become such central figures that the average Brazilian can name at least half of the Court’s eleven justices — something that was unlikely 20 years ago. But, I must confess: with such a politicized Court, Dino seems to fit right in with his future colleagues.
According to the Federal Constitution, the primary role of the Supreme Federal Court is to safeguard the Constitution. It is not supposed to be a political court, influenced by the pressures and negotiations of political backstage dealings to fill its seats. The STF is a constitutional and technical court. Today, however, we have a Court that lives up to the name it bears because its justices, apparently, have become the true enlightened ones who decide the direction of the country and judge the cases they see fit; which is a grave failure in its purpose, especially concerning the safeguarding of fundamental principles.
Flávio Dino will reinforce all these flaws. Or does anyone believe that he will not further politicize the institution? Therefore, his nomination to the Supreme Federal Court highlights the need to approve a Constitutional Amendment Proposal that changes the process of appointing new justices and ends lifetime appointments. Despite the importance of the institution, it should be remembered that none of the eleven justices wearing the “supreme robe” were elected by the people. The nomination of lawyers and friends of the President of the Republic to the Supreme Court seat is entirely incompatible with the functions and responsibilities exercised by the justices.
Let’s consider this: the January 8th incident has led to trials that go against the principles of proportionality and reasonableness that characterize any Democratic Rule of Law. I wonder if Alexandre de Moraes truly believes that everyone who was at the Praça dos Três Poderes on that date is a terrorist. And I’m not here to defend innocence or acquittal. I am questioning the STF and the way everything has been handled since then. Or should we consider it normal that a man—who was detained pending trial and had a compromised cardiac system—died without a release order, signed by the Attorney General’s Office (PGR), even being reviewed by the Court that, in theory, should be safeguarding human dignity?
It’s inevitable to mention, when discussing this topic, the Supreme Court’s inclination toward censorship. It is unacceptable for the Supreme Federal Court to demand—through a monocratic decision—that a private company remove a stance against a bill that affects it (the Censorship Bill). This is exactly what Alexandre de Moraes did with Google. If we cannot point out the negative elements of a bill that clearly has a censorial nature, how far are we from a dictatorial model?
If one cannot criticize or question the STF; if a vote against the interests of the justices in the Federal Senate provokes their revolt and disproportionate anger; there is no other course of action: to have a Court that acts in accordance with the Constitution, it is our duty to pressure Parliament to approve a Constitutional Amendment Proposal that changes the process of appointing justices to the Court. The STF cannot be a stage for the exchange of favors, personal or partisan relationships. Dino is the last straw.