PML: Moro and JB's target is democracy itself.

by Paulo Moreira Leite

Barbosa and Sergio Moro's attacks on the Minister of Justice come at a time when criticism of Lava Jato is growing in legal circles.

All things considered, the attack by Joaquim Barbosa and Sergio Moro on the Minister of Justice, José Eduardo Cardozo, is an act that attempts to challenge the authority of President Dilma Rousseff.

It is not up to a judge, much less a first-instance judge, nor a retired magistrate, to tell the President of the Republic what she should do. The Minister of Justice can, should, and has already been criticized for various reasons. He just cannot be subjected to judicial review. Neither Joaquim Barbosa nor Sergio Moro can give Brazilians the impression that they have the authority to assign tasks, define functions, and set limits.

Democracy is not an irrational shouting match in the stands, where the loudest voice wins. Judges speak through their rulings, Sérgio Moro reminded us yesterday. He reminded us, but curiously, he didn't follow through. Just like Joaquim Barbosa. He avoided meeting with lawyers when he was on the Supreme Court, but now he recommends that defendants in the Lava Jato case seek out the judge.

We live under a system of separation of powers, which must be respected in their differences and function in harmony.

The actions of the Minister of Justice are a legitimate extension of the sovereignty of the President, who received from the electorate the responsibility of assembling her government and guiding its actions. Except at carnival balls, one cannot "demand" that the President dismiss her minister, just as one could not "demand," before, that he be appointed. (To demand, explains the mini-Houaiss dictionary, means "to ask in an authoritarian tone, to determine by order or summons").

Cardozo not only has the right to receive lawyers whenever he deems it necessary, but also has a duty to do so—every time he considers that such a decision may be useful in fulfilling his fundamental political obligation, which is to guarantee and defend the Constitution, where the notion that every person is innocent until proven guilty prevails.

A refusal could be considered an omission — and that would indeed be serious, worthy of outrage.

Casting suspicion on a minister who meets with a lawyer is a basic exercise in lynching.

It betrays the typical vice of those who believe they have the right to accuse without proof — which is regrettable but nothing new.

The argument that lawyers should address judges and not politicians would be ridiculous if it weren't, first and foremost, shameful.

In a democracy, no authority has a monopoly on defending citizens' rights, not least because there is no guarantee that they will always be willing to honor this duty. It was a conservative senator from Alagoas, Teotônio Vilela, who opened the prison doors to listen to the political prisoners who were facing torture under the dictatorship. Family members and lawyers were there to gather accounts of horror and suffering. Some were politicians. Others became so.

Even in higher courts, theoretically much more protected by their special prerogatives, the rule was the silence of bowed robes and closed mouths. Allegations of torture and execution were plentiful, in courageous testimonies from defendants and witnesses, but no one was investigated. No case was dismissed because a citizen had been hung on the rack or subjected to interrogation with electric shocks. All that remained were denunciations, carefully filed away, and only released when nothing more could be done to locate and punish those responsible.

There is another point. In recent weeks, allegations of abuse in plea bargains and preventive detentions of those accused in Operation Lava Jato have become frequent, generating an atmosphere of unease in legal circles. Marco Aurélio Mello, one of the most respected voices in the Supreme Court, has already expressed his discontent. Celso Bandeira de Mello, one of our great lawyers, has too. What we are witnessing is an attempt at shielding: a minister is being intimidated in an attempt to silence those who could speak out, to paralyze those who could react.

That's the question.