Luiz Moreira: Thompson Flores resolved a non-existent jurisdictional conflict.
"Consider this: the force of judicial decisions is merely symbolic. If they may not be enough to release someone, why should they be enough to imprison them?" asks legal scholar Luiz Moreira, professor of constitutional law.
By Luiz Moreira, professor of constitutional law – In the decision overturning the injunction granted by Judge Rogério Favreto, Judge Thompson Flores suggests that "a positive conflict of jurisdiction during judicial recess does not have specific regulations and, for this reason, should be resolved by this Presidency," since "it is governed by Article 16 of Resolution No. 127 of 11/22/2017 of this Court: Art. 16. Omitted cases will be resolved by the Presidency of this Court for second-instance recess and by the Regional Inspector for first-instance recess cases."
This is a non-existent conflict, since, obviously, there would only be a positive conflict of jurisdiction if another If the duty judge decided otherwise, then if two duty judges issued conflicting decisions or attempted to resolve similar issues, there would indeed be a positive conflict of jurisdiction between the duty judges, which would require resolution.
Judge Favreto, who is on duty, is the natural judge for this Habeas Corpus case, and João Gebran, therefore, who is not on duty, does not have jurisdiction over this HC. Therefore, there is no positive conflict of jurisdiction.
Thus, the decision of the President of the TRF 4th Region follows the same pattern of circumventing the judicial order and perpetuates judicial decisionism.
Consider this: the force of judicial decisions is merely symbolic. If they may not be sufficient to release someone, why should they be sufficient to imprison them?