Heleno's jealousy over his boss's cell phone.

It seemed that Augusto Heleno, head of the GSI, was no longer young enough to find anything 'unbelievable,' as he complained in his 'note to the nation.' He says, 'The request to seize the President of the Republic's cell phone is inconceivable and, to a certain extent, unbelievable.' (…)

Everything else there is legal. But you can't judge the minister right there. It's clear that law isn't his forte.

The problem begins, in the text of the note, with the error 'request for seizure'. The Judiciary does not 'request'. It determines, orders or commands. The legal effects are completely different and, as they say in Law, the legal nature is entirely dichotomous: 'requesting' and 'ordering'.

Secondly, there's the so-called 'affront'. It's in the note: 'If it were to be carried out, it would be an affront to the highest authority of the Executive Branch.' The lexicographer Laudelino Freire defines 'affront' as contempt, mockery, or insult. Now, these whims or petty grievances are foreign to a court order which, in a criminal investigation – like the one the president is involved in – has the mere bureaucratic duty of regulating evidence, adversarial proceedings, full defense, due process of law, and related matters. What doesn't exist in a court order to exhibit or deliver a cell phone – which hasn't happened yet! – is this so-called affront.

The note continues with the error of 'inadmissible interference by another branch of government in the President's privacy'. Heleno failed to consider the mundane phenomenon of 'crime', as defined in Decree-Law 3.914/40, article 1, 'A crime is considered to be a penal infraction for which the law prescribes a penalty of imprisonment or detention, whether alone, alternatively, or cumulatively with a fine'. He also forgets the 'existence' of the constitutional provision, included in article 86. Indeed, Heleno, presidents are human and can commit crimes.

Now, when faced with a crime, everyone is 'equal before the law without distinction of any kind,' according to Article 5 of the Constitution of the Republic. And, since Heleno likes hierarchy, the Constitution is well above him, his grades, his cell phone, and the president.

So, one must ask: what would be immune to a criminal investigation that could exclude a suspect or their phone data? Answer: nothing and no one. Any 'authority' who gets involved in a criminal scandal, if investigated, will be investigated. It's that simple. And they cannot claim 'authority'.

There is no authority that 'belongs' to anyone, but is merely a reflection of public office. And even then, only for as long as the individual holds the office.

Does the alleged 'institutional security of the country' authorize anyone to commit a crime? Of course not. Crime is mundane and highly personal; it concerns a specific individual. It is enshrined in laws that exclude no one.

The question is this: can a judge order, for a criminal investigation or prosecution, a forensic examination of anyone's cell phone? If so, then the president's. To want the president's cell phone to be special simply because it belongs to the president, for the purposes of a crime, would be to create a caste of public officials who could be above the law. And the great achievement of humanity, known as the Rule of Law, which evolved into a Democratic Rule of Law and even a Social Democratic Rule of Law, excludes no one. Not even President Heleno.

Regarding the legal farce of the president swearing he wouldn't hand over his cell phone—something that seems to many to be a sign of virility—given the resulting uproar, there would be yet another crime. Now, a crime of responsibility, subjecting him to... impeachmentYes, the Constitution of the Republic, in article 85, expressly states: 'The following are crimes of responsibility: acts of the President of the Republic that violate the Federal Constitution and, especially, those that violate: VII – compliance with laws and judicial decisions.'

Therefore, if the president insisted on this voluntarist nonsense, he would be in trouble. The Constitution states that he is obligated to defend and uphold, as well as observe, the laws, according to his constitutional commitment expressed in article 78.

As if that weren't enough, it's in the supporting Code of Civil Procedure, article 378: 'No one is exempt from the duty to cooperate with the Judiciary in the discovery of the truth.' Do you know what 'no one' means? That's right. No one is nobody.

Thus, Heleno's layman's understandable jealousy over his boss's cell phone, in the face of a possible court order, a judicial warrant for the production of the cell phone, cannot be legally sustained. This is especially true considering that the meeting was filmed in an Executive branch setting and had to be presented to the Judiciary, and moreover, gained publicity like any procedural act – judicial proceedings are public –; this is constitutional.

The conclusion is that for fans and followers – all fanatics, have you noticed? – of the president, he can do anything. More than that. He should do anything. Shut down the other branches of government, kill journalists, gays, lesbians, destroy non-'traditional' families, etc. As long as these ultra-radical preferences of the far right only adorn people's brains, there's no problem. Everyone is what they want to be, and this freedom is constitutional. The problem is believing and wanting the president to do and do everything. He can't, and the Constitution is there precisely for that reason.

Regarding the legal concept of 'harmony between the powers', Constitution, article 2, allegedly threatened as in Heleno's note, this is another area of ​​study for him. He could start with some qualified commentator. The traditional Cretella Júnior is didactic. He teaches that harmony between the Powers means 'they should not conflict with each other in the performance of their respective functions'.

Now, when the Judiciary orders a potential criminal suspect to present their cell phone for forensic examination, this is a proper and typical activity of this branch of government, related to a criminal investigation, and is in no way related to or conflicts with the typical activities of the Executive branch. It is clear that there is no trace, however small, of a breach of harmony between the branches of government. Indeed, Heleno went off on a tangent.

Finally, the Law of Introduction to the Civil Code of 1942, which only changed its name in 2010 to the Law of Introduction to the Norms of Brazilian Law, has always stated in Article 3: 'No one can excuse themselves from complying with the law by claiming ignorance of it.' Not even the president.

Regarding Heleno's boastful statement about his boss's cell phone "leading to" anything, it won't, it won't lead to anything. It's not frightening. Only those psychoanalytically scared by conspiracy theories would be. Ministers come and go. But the Powers of the Republic are perennial. Since Montesquieu. And the Brazilian people, in general, are already accustomed to their shitstormA kind of storm of indignation, as philosopher Byung-Chul Han mentions, was no longer going to accept a fifth-world dictatorship. Unless, of course, it was very stupid.

The conclusion is: Can the Judiciary order the surrender of someone's cell phone? Of course it can. And the president, for the purposes of a criminal investigation, is merely a person.

Apart from that, long live democracy.