PML: Property tax was the 3rd intervention against Haddad

247 - The court decision that prevented the increase in property tax (IPTU) in the city of São Paulo, as proposed by Mayor Fernando Haddad, "was a frontal attack on an entirely legitimate decision," criticizes journalist Paulo Moreira Leite, from the Brasília branch of IstoÉ magazine. He points out that jurists justify making decisions in place of legislators when the latter are negligent, but in this case, the São Paulo City Council was not negligent. "The Council received the proposal, debated it, and approved it." Read his article:

THE POLITICAL SIDE OF JUDICIALIZATION
The injunction against the IPTU (property tax) was the third intervention against Fernando Haddad's prerogative.

In an effort to convince Brazilians that the Judiciary has the right to make decisions that Article 1 of the Constitution reserves for representatives elected by the people, our commentators and observers attempt to present a noble justification.

It is said that judicialization is a product of our legislators' inaction. The idea is well-known: since our legislators fail to fulfill their obligations, the Justice system ends up being forced to intervene, kindly, even against its will, in defense of the citizen.

Seeking to give an epic aspect to the behavior of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), Minister Luiz Roberto Barroso recently said that, in certain cases, the court "pushes history forward."

Unless we are dealing with a deterministic conception of history, it is worth remembering that the evolution of humanity can be pushed towards a positive destiny, but it can also be led into darkness and abyss. In 1964, history went backward, with a little help from the Supreme Federal Court, which accommodated itself to military power.

It is curious to note that there is talk of our legislators' omission just days after the country witnessed a brutal intervention by the Judiciary in the debate over the increase in property tax in São Paulo.

Joaquim Barbosa, president of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), upheld a preliminary injunction from the Court of Justice that suspends the increase in property tax (IPTU).

You can say whatever you want about this property tax. You can criticize it or praise it. You can think it will give Fernando Haddad the resources he needs to advance his management program, and that's a bad thing. You can also think the new property tax will anger the middle class and hinder Dilma Rousseff's vote in São Paulo.

It cannot be said, however, that the City Council was negligent. The Council received the proposal, debated it, and approved it. If anything was done, it was to move quickly on this matter.

Suspending the increase was a frontal attack on an entirely legitimate decision.

The social content of this decision is a caricature of Brazilian inequality.

It would be a bad joke if it weren't a tragedy.

On average, each property owner would see an increase of 50 cents per day in their property tax. You know that little silver coin that so many people reach into their pockets to give to that child who stretches their arm out the window when the light is red? That's what it was, and only that, except for those people who see the world through the myopic lens of the tax meter – an attitude that older generations would call the selfishness of someone who has lost even their soul.

Residents of poor neighborhoods and homes, equivalent to 14% of the total, would be exempt.

Considering that the project originated during Fernando Haddad's administration, who was elected with 55% of the vote in 2012, it's not difficult to deduce who was on whose side in this debate.

A leading political figure in the campaign against the increase, the president of FIESP (Federation of Industries of the State of São Paulo), Paulo Skaf, was the same person who in 2007 played a key role in raising the funds that allowed the Senate to abolish the CPMF (Provisional Contribution on Financial Transactions), depriving public health of 20 billion reais. There was even a questionable element in this decision, since the Constitution states that health is a right of all and a duty of the State. It is up to the State, therefore, to find ways to fulfill its obligations, which can only be done through taxes and subsidies.

But the Senate, dominated by an opposition interested in crippling Lula's government, managed to get Skaf's help to divert money from public health.

It was disastrous from a popular point of view. But it wasn't "silent," right? On the contrary: it was "explicit," it was "active," it was "clear."

For whose benefit, my friends?

By assuming responsibilities outside its competence, the Judiciary competes for power with elected representatives, favoring authoritarian solutions behind the backs of the voter, who may applaud one measure here, dislike another later, and condemn a third – without understanding that they are being deprived of the final say on the nation's destiny.

See what happened with the oil royalties. Congress decided, by a large majority, that they should be divided more equitably among the Brazilian states. This measure displeased a segment of voters in the states that would lose revenue and was strongly opposed by TV Globo.

To this day, a sovereign decision of the Brazilian Congress remains stalled at the Supreme Court. Whose fault is this?

The same Court of Justice that deprived the São Paulo city hall of an extra R$ 800 million in funding has defined a detailed daycare program, with deadlines to be met, goals, and so on. Has anyone wondered what our judges intend to do with Fernando Haddad – the authority elected by the people of São Paulo to safeguard the city's interests – if the TJ-SP's daycare program is not fulfilled?

In another episode, Haddad moved forward with a campaign project and suspended Controlar. The program was reinstated by court order.

As mayor of the country's largest city, does Haddad owe explanations to the courts or to the voters?

This is the point.

Like most of the population, I have a rather critical opinion of our legislators. Many are less concerned with the needs of the people than they should be. They even take actions that many people consider insulting and demoralizing. None of this justifies, however, any effort to diminish and weaken their powers. It is appropriate to debate electoral rules, seek other candidates, and so on. Unless, of course, you haven't yet realized that democracy is the worst regime in the world—except for all the others.

And here we arrive at the essential question.

When acting politically, the Judiciary is forced, in one way or another, to depart from its essential principle of impartiality, balance, and equilibrium, in order to take sides and choose a side.

In an editorial acknowledging the problem, Folha de S. Paulo even goes so far as to ask the Judiciary for "balance." Referring to the Court of Justice's daycare program, the newspaper warns:

"If it ends up usurping the powers of the Executive branch and aspires to conduct educational policy in place of the government, the decision will be disastrous."

In established democracies, courts are guided by a balance between activism and self-restraint. In Brazil's young democracy, the search for this formula is underway and will depend, to a large extent, on the success (or failure) of experiences such as that of the São Paulo Court of Justice and the sobriety of the justices of the Supreme Federal Court.

Let's agree that the mere fact that a newspaper is asking the Judiciary for "balance" shows that we have reached a worrying state of imbalance between the branches of government. It is telling that the newspaper has acknowledged this.

The truth is that we are not facing a debate about the "best way" to manage the city, in a kind of seminar among well-intentioned citizens, where it is necessary to find the "right point" in a "complex" universe and other arguments that seem academic.

The discussion is political and involves concrete interests. It also involves the foundations of state power. Cornered by three major decisions during his administration, Fernando Haddad faces a situation that is far from unique.

Judicialization occurs in dozens of medium-sized Brazilian cities, where mayors are frequently affected during their terms and forced to modify or suspend policies that they have every right to implement as elected representatives of the people.