Zavascki admits to threats against his family, but says there is nothing serious.

Alana Gandra, from Agência Brasil - Minister Teori Zavascki, rapporteur of the Lava Jato Operation cases at the Supreme Federal Court, admitted today (6), in Rio de Janeiro, the existence of threats to his family, according to a message posted by his son on Facebook, but downplayed the fact, stating: “I haven’t received anything serious”. He did not give further details on the matter and made the comment after a lecture he gave this Monday in the city.

The statement was a response to a question from Agência Brasil reporters, asking if he confirmed the message posted by his son, Francisco Prehn Zavascki, on Facebook on May 26th at 23:06 PM: “It’s obvious that there are movements of all kinds to stop Lava Jato. I think it’s even childish to imagine that there aren’t, that is, that criminals of the worst kind (as the Federal Prosecutor’s Office claims) have simply decided to submit to the law. I believe that the law and the institutions will prevail, however, I warn you: if something happens to someone in my family, you already know where to look…! That’s the message!”

The minister concluded the lecture series promoted by the Getúlio Vargas Foundation on the Impacts of Crises on Public Institutions, and stated that "in these times of national crisis, a profession of faith in the Legislative Branch as an institution is essential to the preservation of the democratic rule of law."

According to the minister, the Brazilian legal system provides the Judiciary with a fruitful activity of normative production, with more or less comprehensive subjective effectiveness. This encompasses everything from judgments for specific cases to judgments with a high degree of generality, the limits of which, however, must be observed.

The minister highlighted that there are also situations where the separation between jurisdiction and legislation does not have clearly defined limits, and it is natural that in these cases there may be points of tension. What is not legitimate, in his view, is the encroachment of jurisdiction into the area proper to the legislature, under the pretext that the activity of the legislature is negligent or deficient: "We have to be very careful with respecting certain eloquent silences of the legislature." In certain situations, Zavascki said, it is best to await the position of the legislature.

The minister also emphasized the need for transparency in the Judiciary. "The Judiciary is justified by the reasoning behind its decisions," he stated. He added that the judge, "who is not elected, is justified by his adherence to the law." According to him, a judge can never fall into the temptation of issuing populist or demagogic decisions. The minister stated that the justification for a judicial decision can never be the popular will, except to the extent that this popular will is expressed in the Constitution or in the laws.

"The legislator is the one with the legitimacy to transform the popular will into a norm of conduct. For this, he has the direct vote. The judge cannot ascertain the popular will in each decision he makes. The judge ascertains the popular will as it was manifested by the direct representatives of that popular will," said Zavascki.

The minister acknowledged that, often, judges, “even against our will,” have to decide according to the will of the law. The guarantees that magistrates have allow them to make decisions that, in times of crisis, represent the maintenance of the rules of the game, he said. “And these unpopular decisions manifest themselves precisely in times of crisis,” the Supreme Court minister emphasized.

Justice Teori Zavascki believes that privileged jurisdiction should be more restricted, but he declined to comment on which positions this restriction might apply to, limiting himself to suggesting that some aspects could fall under the purview of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ): “I think perhaps it should be reconsidered, and I think there is perhaps a certain consensus that it should be reduced.” However, it is not a matter of will to act, he explained: “The Judiciary must express the will of the law. The Judiciary does not have a will; it acts bound by the law.”

Teori Zavascki believes that the Brazilian constitutional system, with its definition of the functions of the three branches of government, can be changed whenever necessary: ​​"Eventually, to get out of a crisis, I think it can." He criticized the exaggeration of imagining that the 1988 Constitution is immutable: "It has to adapt. This happens all over the world."

Asked how a Supreme Court Justice can shield himself from being influenced, Zavascki said that the role of the lawyer, as well as the prosecutor, is to influence the judge: "The important thing is that the judge is influenced to make the correct decision, and that it is a positive influence, not a negative one."

The minister revealed that he never fails to listen to lawyers. “They are paid to do so. Some influence me, others don't. Sometimes neither; or sometimes both.” For the minister, the attempt to influence magistrates is within the normal scope of the function. The right to a fair hearing is an opportunity to influence the judge in a positive way, he stated, because “a sentence is a product of influences, preferably good ones.” According to Teori Zavascki, “we shouldn't shield ourselves from good influences. And we hope that bad influences will not be effective.”