Mensalão scandal and judge replacement: Will the Supreme Court, the Public Prosecutor's Office, the National Council of Justice, and the Brazilian Bar Association do nothing?

No one would think that any Supreme Court Justice, whoever they may be, is unaware of the principle of the "natural judge." This principle dictates that a judge is non-transferable. As the Constitution states, a judge is guaranteed irremovability. This principle exists precisely so that no "authority," whether politically or administratively interested in replacing a judge with one more committed to a particular case, in convicting or acquitting, in worsening or facilitating a situation, can orchestrate a substitution. Never, under any circumstances.

That is exactly what appears to have happened with the replacement of the judge overseeing the execution of the sentences in criminal case 470. If this is confirmed, we are facing yet another scandal.

The newly elected president of the Brazilian Magistrates Association, João Ricardo dos Santos Costa, in a disconcerting criticism of Joaquim Barbosa, declared: "At least the Constitution that I have here at home doesn't say that the president of the Supreme Court can replace a judge at any moment with the stroke of a pen."

The newspaper O Globo, in blatant euphemistic cynicism, said that Costa was "ironic." No, Costa was devastating, incisive, and correct. The irony here is the minor point, the least important thing. Accusing the president of the Supreme Court of "stroking his pen," of violating the principle of the natural judge, is to impose procedural dishonesty on the matter. And the matter challenges the very concept of procedural honesty and dishonesty. The replacement of a judge, as the press has been reporting, is a very serious matter that threatens the Democratic State, the Supreme Court, the Judiciary, the Public Prosecutor's Office, and society.

Now, it's no longer Barbosa who is under scrutiny, but the other Supreme Court justices; the National Council of Justice; and the "guardian of the law," the Public Prosecutor's Office. The likely psychoanalytic civil disobedience that is expected to take hold in the minds of many judges across the country in relation to Joaquim Barbosa amounts to a silent revolution in the judiciary. Many judges will follow Vasconcelos and cease to consider Joaquim Barbosa a just, correct, and balanced magistrate. Does this affect the Supreme Federal Court? Of course it does. And the STF should be concerned about this. It shouldn't pretend it doesn't care.

JB's problem is no longer just a televised outburst or a momentary reactive imbalance to oral debates and divergent arguments—what many euphemistically call the "beauty of dialectics." Now, with the speech of the president of the Magistrates Association, it involves procedural illegality and abuse of power by the president of the Supreme Federal Court. The much-touted personal arrogance or authoritarianism of JB is no longer of interest; what matters is the violation of legal guidelines. Naturally, a statement from the Brazilian Bar Association is also expected.

Society cannot be disregarded when the press reports an illegality committed by the head of a branch of government and that branch does not speak out, does not respond, does not address the issue clearly, and even exposes the reporter. If the press cannot spread infamous, deceitful, and false news about anyone or any branch of government, then that branch has a public duty to point it out when journalistic infamy occurs. The branch of government will not only be defending itself, but fulfilling its institutional duty to be honest before society, its source of funding.

The impression is that the Supreme Court justices are waiting for Joaquim Barbosa to leave so that everything can return to normal. If they made this deal, they will pay a very high price: the demoralization of the court. Time doesn't erase everything, and historians exist precisely to prevent it from being erased. A substantial portion of the legal community, observers, intellectuals, and the press are exposing unsustainable inner workings of the court. It's not without reason that some are already talking about impeaching JB.

To think that the problem is limited to a petty partisan squabble or the Brazilian domestic press is to fail to imagine that nowadays everyone reads everything. The Supreme Court's lethargy in clarifying such serious accusations is unbelievable. Or in providing explanations to society in the face of such precise and unparalleled attacks in its entire history.

From the blog General Observatory