TV 247 logo
      Search
      HOME > Brazil

      In Globo, Marco Aurélio puts pressure on the dean.

      In an article in the Marinho family's newspaper, Judge Marco Aurélio Mello (who released Salvatore Cacciola) asks that his colleague Celso de Mello's vote "be auspicious"; he also says that "the conviction could be transformed into an acquittal, making one take back what was said, to the general perplexity"; in civilized countries, judges who are part of a collegial body, such as the Supreme Federal Court, remain silent when it is the turn of the other ministers to speak; here, judges contribute to the noise and misinformation.

      In an article in the Marinho family's newspaper, Judge Marco Aurélio Mello (who released Salvatore Cacciola) asks that his colleague Celso de Mello's vote "be auspicious"; he also says that "the conviction could be transformed into an acquittal, taking back what was said, to the general perplexity"; in civilized countries, judges who are part of a collegial body, such as the Supreme Federal Court, remain silent when it is the turn of the other ministers to speak; here, judges contribute to the noise and misinformation (Photo: Leonardo Attuch)

      247 - Judge Marco Aurélio Mello, the same judge who released banker Salvatore Cacciola and thus allowed his escape, attempts to embarrass the senior justice Celso de Mello in an article published today in the newspaper O Globo. Mello asks for a "promising vote" and says that if things don't go as he wishes, there will be "general perplexity." In civilized countries, judges who are part of a collegial body, such as the Supreme Federal Court, remain silent when it is the turn of the other justices to speak. Here, on the contrary, the justices themselves contribute to the uproar and misinformation. Read Marco Aurélio's text below:

      The Supreme Court and dissenting opinions - MARCO AURÉLIO MELLO

      This Wednesday promises to be a defining moment in our experience. Does it signal a new era?

      The criminal case known as "mensalão" was judged by the Plenary of the Supreme Federal Court. It occupied practically the entire second half of 2012 — 54 sessions. The conviction was challenged through declaratory appeals, and in the consideration of these, in 2013, eight sessions were held. Then, after exhaustive debates, the controversy arose regarding the appropriateness of yet another appeal — the dissenting opinion appeal.

      Before the 1988 Constitution, the Supreme Court could issue rules regarding actions and appeals within its jurisdiction. At that time, its Internal Regulations addressed the admissibility of appeals, presupposing four dissenting votes in favor of the defense. The question is: do these appeals still exist in the legal landscape? The answer is no, due to the tacit repeal of the Regulations, since Law No. 8.038/90, when regulating criminal actions within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Superior Court of Justice, remained silent on the matter.

      This fact generated a glaring incompatibility. The reason is simple. Congress failed to provide for appeals against the decisions of the Superior Court. To understand it otherwise implies that, when the latter judges, for example, a state governor, the pronouncement, whatever the score, does not challenge the decision; but, when the highest court in the country judges a deputy or senator, with four votes in favor of the defense, it opens the door to another judgment of the same nature and in true overlap. The same reasoning applies to the Courts of Justice, regarding mayors, and the Regional Federal Courts, concerning judges and members of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office.

      The system doesn't close, and considering the Supreme Court's scrutiny, the review by the Court itself is established, casting doubt on the correctness of the formalized conviction. Furthermore, the admission of the appeal generates consequences. The first concerns the breach of the principle of equality, because only the defendants with four votes in their favor will have the right to a possible reform of the decision. The second concerns the change in the composition of the Court due to the retirement of two ministers who participated in the trial. That is to say: if the members who arrived later add their votes to the four from the minority, the conviction could be transformed into an acquittal, reversing what was said and done, to general perplexity. This has already occurred in the case of the revocation of a parliamentary mandate, where the new Supreme Court concluded that, despite the commission of a crime against public administration, the perpetrator was not responsible for its implementation. Add to this the problem of prescription, since there is the possibility of a reduction in sentences.

      This Wednesday promises to be a defining moment regarding the current situation. Does it reveal a new era? The floor is now open to the senior member of the Supreme Court, the learned Justice Celso de Mello, who holds the deciding vote, given the current tie of five votes in favor of admitting the appeal and five in favor of the tacit revocation of the Internal Regulations. May the outcome be auspicious!