HOME > Brazil

Fux remains unchanged, but is likely to lose in the plenary session.

Supreme Court Justice Luiz Fux will maintain his position on the analysis of presidential vetoes when the case is brought to trial in the Court's plenary session next Wednesday, but his vote is expected to be overruled; the Attorney General's Office estimates losses of R$ 470 billion and "institutional collapse."

Fux remains unchanged, but is likely to lose in the plenary session.

Deborah Zampier
Reporter from Agência Brasil

Brasilia – Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Luiz Fux said today (25) that he will maintain his understanding regarding the analysis of presidential vetoes when the case is brought to trial in the Court's plenary session next Wednesday (27). In a preliminary decision at the end of last year, Fux suspended the analysis of the vetoes to the law of royalties The oil veto was to be reviewed by the National Congress while another 3 vetoes were being analyzed in chronological order.

“I gave a fairly reasonable interpretation, understanding that parliamentary activity itself is not prohibited, only the voting on vetoes, which must follow a chronological order,” the minister justified during a break in a public hearing at the Supreme Federal Court. Even with this explanation, a legal and political impasse was created, preventing the consideration of the 2013 Federal Budget.

Two weeks ago, the Attorney General's Office (AGU) asked the Supreme Federal Court (STF) to adapt Fux's decision, limiting the chronological voting only to cases where the deadline for reviewing the vetoes has not yet expired. The AGU also argued that reviewing the vetoes could result in losses of up to R$ 470 billion for public coffers, in addition to creating an "institutional collapse" in both legislative houses.

According to Fux, it is natural that "political problems that we are unaware of" are creating difficulties in analyzing the vetoes. "This is not a problem created by the Judiciary. When we talk about judicial activism, it can give the impression that the Judiciary is taking the initiative. No, the Judiciary was here fulfilling its constitutional mission of resolving what is submitted to it," said the minister.