The judiciary puts on a show against the PT (Workers' Party) and holds a mass for the PSDB (Brazilian Social Democracy Party).

The more one examines how the Brazilian justice system treats citizens, the more visible it becomes how it uses different criteria and procedures depending on factors that, until recently, were limited to social class and economic situation, but now encompass political bias and, worse, partisan bias.

This fact becomes clear in light of news that, apparently – and only apparently – sounds auspicious. Namely, that the Federal Court has forwarded to the Supreme Court the investigation into a cartel involving multinational corporations and PSDB politicians in bidding processes for the São Paulo Metro and CPTM (São Paulo Metropolitan Train Company).

The statement from the 6th Federal Criminal Court of São Paulo regarding the transfer of the case to Brasília appears to apologize for the measure and, in theory, should mean that this transfer aims to shield the investigation from pressure from the São Paulo judiciary, but, given its content, the measure can also be interpreted as a safeguard for authorities in the São Paulo government.

Below is the note.

—–

 

PRESS RELEASE REGARDING INVESTIGATION AT THE 6TH CRIMINAL COURT

São Paulo, December 10, 2013

Regarding the information published in the press about the police investigation into alleged bribery payments to public officials in connection with bidding processes related to the São Paulo Metro, among other criminal practices, it is important to clarify:

1 – The police investigation is conducted under judicial secrecy, both due to the existence of constitutionally and legally protected information, and to provide greater effectiveness to the investigations, with the disclosure of the data contained therein being prohibited by those bound by a duty of confidentiality;

2 – The police investigation was referred to the Supreme Federal Court because the possible commission of criminal offenses by authorities holding privileged jurisdiction before that Court was mentioned;

3 – The referral of the case files to the Supreme Federal Court does not imply recognition by the magistrate responsible for supervising the investigation of the existence of concrete evidence of criminal practices by the aforementioned authorities, being based solely on the understanding that it is the responsibility of the Supreme Federal Court to supervise any investigative measures related to such authorities.

6th Federal Criminal Court of São Paulo

—–

A day before this statement was released, one of Brazil's most renowned jurists, author of works required reading in law schools across the country, stated verbatim that the Supreme Federal Court treated politicians from the PT and PSDB parties differently, and that against the PT it put on a "show," but against the PSDB it held a kind of mass.

In a recent interview with the web TV program Contraponto – which will be published in full on this blog soon – the jurist Dalmo de Abreu Dallari made these and other worrying remarks, even going so far as to call the theory used to convict the defendants in the Mensalão scandal, the infamous "command responsibility" theory, "Nazi".

For those who might attribute "leftism" or "PT-ism" to Dallari – which, in the legal world, would be considered heresy – his antithesis, the jurist Ives Gandra Martins, a numerary member of Opus Dei and one of its founders in Brazil, as well as a historical adversary of the PT, gave an interview to Folha de São Paulo in which he stated that former minister José Dirceu was convicted "without evidence."

Both legal experts acknowledge, for example, that there was differential treatment regarding the separation of the respective PT and PSDB mensalão cases. According to the first, the Supreme Court innovated by prosecuting defendants without privileged jurisdiction; according to the second, it referred the cases of those without such jurisdiction to the lower courts.

The ritualistic approach of the Justice system in cases involving the PSDB is, therefore, legitimately solemn. A thousand reservations are made regarding the rights of the accused, especially a right that was denied to the defendants during the investigation of the PT's mensalão scandal: the presumption of innocence.

In the era of "dominion of the fact," the presumption of innocence by the Justice system, as the 6th Federal Criminal Court of São Paulo does, has become a privilege. What's this story about noting that there's no evidence against prominent figures in the PSDB party? If there were no evidence, they wouldn't be listed in the forwarded inquiry – and as suspects, yes.

Names from the PSDB party, such as São Paulo state government secretaries Aloysio Nunes and José Aníbal, appear in Siemens' complaint regarding corruption in business dealings with the governments of Mário Covas, José Serra, and Geraldo Alckmin. The judicial investigation into the German company's complaint, therefore, casts suspicion on every member of these administrations, from the highest to the lowest level.

Or not?

From the media's perspective, it's no different.

In the week that Veja magazine and its horde of zombies try to make unquestionable accusations without proof against former president Lula by a former police officer fired from Dilma's government after suffering serious accusations from the Federal Police of involvement with organized crime, we see the same magazine suggesting that the Swiss Justice system and the German multinational Siemens allied themselves with the PT to smear politicians from the PSDB party.

But after the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office of São Paulo itself, through prosecutor Rodrigo de Grandis, shelved successive requests from the Swiss Justice system to investigate the same authorities who now appear in the note from the 6th Criminal Court of Brasília, Veja's conduct becomes almost natural.

In an interview that jurist Dalmo Dallari gave to this writer last Monday, he also said that this politicization of the judiciary is not unique to Brazil. In the United States – from where our judicial system is copied – the parties that alternate in power appoint judges clearly identified with them, in a contest that is even publicly tallied.

Here in Brazil, the most blatant cynicism continues to be practiced, according to Dallari. We pretend that there is no politicization of the Judiciary and, above all, of the Supreme Federal Court. We have reached the height of cynicism by having the Legislature question candidates for the top of the Judiciary, as if to assess their impossible impartiality.

All this and much more could be gleaned from the interview with the jurist Dalmo de Abreu Dallari. These are frightening considerations, as they force one to conclude that the model of "democracy" that prevails in Brazil and even in powers such as the United States, among others, allows people to be judged by the courts based on political criteria.

Those who fail to understand the gravity of this new reality will be sowing the seeds of future abuses. If this distortion is not corrected, it won't be long before we see politics waging a bloody battle to control the judiciary, because the political group currently being harmed will have no choice but to join in.