President of the Supreme Court: Defending the Constitution, Democracy, and Justice

Justice Luís Roberto Barroso Reflects on the Current Moment

On July 9th, sanctions were announced against Brazil by a traditional trading partner, based on an imprecise understanding of events that have occurred in the country in recent years. It was up to the Executive Branch, and particularly diplomacy – not the Judiciary – to provide immediate political responses in the heat of the moment. Now that the initial reaction has passed, I consider it my duty, as head of the Judiciary, to calmly reconstruct the relevant facts of Brazil's recent history, and especially the actions of the Supreme Federal Court (STF).

In open and democratic societies, differing worldviews are a part of life, and that's a good thing. But they don't give anyone the right to twist the truth or deny concrete facts that everyone has seen and experienced. Democracy has room for conservatives, liberals, and progressives. Opposition and the alternation of power are essential to the system. However, ethical life must be lived with values, good faith, and a sincere search for truth. So that everyone can form their own opinion about what is right, just, and legitimate, what follows is a factual and objective description of reality.

Beginning in 1985, we have enjoyed 40 years of institutional stability, with successive free and fair elections and the full extent of individual liberties. Only what constitutes a crime has been repressed. We should not disregard the importance of this achievement in a country that has experienced successive breaches of constitutional legality throughout its history at various times.

These institutional ruptures or attempted ruptures, in just the last 90 years, include: the Communist Uprising of 1935, the New State coup of 1937, the removal of Getúlio Vargas in 1945, Marshal Lott's preemptive counter-coup in 1955, the removal of João Goulart in 1964, Institutional Act No. 5 in 1968, the prevention of Pedro Aleixo's inauguration and the granting of a new Constitution in 1969, the "years of lead" until 1973, and the closing of Congress by Geisel in 1977. It took us a long time to overcome these cycles of regression. The preservation of the democratic rule of law has become one of our generation's most precious assets. But there have been many threats.

In recent years, starting in 2019, we have experienced episodes including: an attempted terrorist bombing at the Brasília airport; an attempted invasion of Federal Police headquarters; an attempted bombing of the Supreme Federal Court (STF); false accusations of electoral fraud in the presidential election; a changed report from the Armed Forces that had concluded there was no fraud whatsoever in the electronic voting machines; threats to the lives and physical integrity of STF Justices, including calls for impeachment; encampments of thousands of people outside military barracks demanding the removal of the elected president. And, according to a complaint from the Prosecutor General, an attempted coup that included a plan to assassinate the President of the Republic, the Vice President, and an STF Justice.

An independent and active court was necessary to prevent the collapse of institutions, as has occurred in various countries worldwide, from Eastern Europe to Latin America. The ongoing criminal proceedings for various crimes against the democratic rule of law strictly adhere to due process, with absolute transparency at all stages of the trial. Public sessions are televised and monitored by lawyers, the press, and society.

The trial is still ongoing. The Public Prosecutor's office's complaint was accepted, as is standard in criminal proceedings at any level, based on serious indications of a crime. Experienced and qualified lawyers have presented their counterarguments. The case files contain confessions, audio recordings, videos, texts, and other elements intended to document the facts. The STF will rule independently and based on the evidence. If there is proof, the guilty will be held accountable. If not, they will be acquitted. This is how the democratic rule of law functions.

For those who haven't experienced a dictatorship or don't remember one, it's worth recalling: there, indeed, was a lack of freedom, torture, forced disappearances, the closing of Congress, and the persecution of judges. In Brazil today, no one is persecuted. Justice is served, based on evidence and respecting the right to defense. Like all branches of government in an open and democratic society, the Judiciary is subject to disagreements and criticism. These are expressed all the time, without any degree of repression. Alongside other institutions, such as the National Congress and the Executive Branch, the Supreme Federal Court has successfully played its three major roles: ensuring majority rule, preserving the democratic rule of law, and protecting fundamental rights.

Finally, it should be noted that all physical and virtual media circulate freely, without any form of censorship. The STF has firmly protected the right to free expression: among other decisions, it declared unconstitutional the old Press Law, enacted during the military regime (ADPF 130), electoral norms that restricted humor and criticism of political agents during elections (ADI 4451), as well as those that prohibited the dissemination of unauthorized biographies (ADI 4815). More recently, it provided special protection to journalists against attempts at judicial harassment (ADI 6792).

Called upon to decide concrete cases involving digital platforms, the STF produced a moderate solution, less strict than European regulations, preserving freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of enterprise, and constitutional values. Avoiding extremes, we have provided one of the most advanced treatments of the issue in the world: content involving crimes in general must be removed by private notification; certain content involving serious crimes, such as child pornography and terrorism, should be prevented by the algorithms themselves; and everything else will depend on a court order, including in cases of defamation.

It is in difficult times that we must cling to the values and principles that unite us: sovereignty, democracy, freedom, and justice. Like the other institutions of the country, the Judiciary stands with those who work for Brazil and is here to defend it.

Luís Roberto Barroso
President of the Supreme Federal Court

Published Monday, July 14, 2025.
Source: <https://noticias.stf.jus.br/postsnoticias/presidente-do-stf-em-defesa-da-constituicao-da-democracia-e-da-justica/>.

Road block determined by Governor and (or) Mayor

The Governor is prohibited from closing the boundaries of the Federation Unit and the Mayor is prohibited from closing the Municipality limits.

I understand that this is the interpretation that can be extracted from the reading of the decision issued on March 25th, 2020 at 9:55 am by the Minister of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) Marco Aurélio (Precautionary Measure in Direct Action of Unconstitutionality #6,343 from Federal District).

I highlight the following excerpt from the text of the aforementioned decision: "The changes promoted in Law #13,979/2020 must be kept in force, until the sieve of the National Congress, under penalty of potentializing political-party views to the detriment of the public interest".
 

It seems to me that, in spite of "taking care of health" (which is constitutional - Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil 1988 (CRFB-1988), article 23, item II), the heads of state and municipal executives ended up invading an exclusive competence of the Union: to legislate about transit and transport (CRFB-1988, article 22, item XI). It seems to me that it is unconstitutional for the Heads of State and Municipal Executive Powers to prevent and (or) restrict locomotion within the national territory (which would be legislating about transit and transportation). So much so that the measure to restrict entry and (or) locomotion within the national territory was conditioned to the technical and reasoned recommendation of the National Health Surveillance Agency (Federal Ordinary Law #13,979, of February 6, 2020, article 3, item VI). It seems to me the regular exercise of the private legislative competence provided for in article 22, item XI, of the Federal Constitution, in terms of traffic and transportation.

Jamenson Ferreira Espindula de Almeida Melo

Lawyer (since July 7, 2011) working in the Metropolitan Region of Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil, South America..

.

Constitutional nature of the matter prevents analysis of Bahia's request to adopt sanitary barrier at airports

Due to the eminently constitutional character of the matter, the president of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), Minister João Otávio de Noronha, was unaware of a request from the government of Bahia to suspend a preliminary injunction that prohibited the implementation of a sanitary barrier at airports, in order to inspect national flights from São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro and international flights as a measure to prevent the new coronavirus pandemic (Covid-19).

The state even obtained a favorable injunction in the first instance, but there was an appeal and the Regional Federal Court of the 1st Region (TRF1) granted the anticipation of guardianship to suspend the effects of the contested decision. When requesting the suspension of the TRF1 decision, the state government claimed that the matter has an infraconstitutional character, which would imply the STJ's competence to examine it.

In addition, he argued that he intends to work together with the National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa), but he cannot be prevented from exercising sanitary control in his own territory, and the absence of this control may put the Bahian population at risk in the face of the pandemic. .
Suspicion rules

Minister João Otávio de Noronha recalled that, according to the legislation on the counter-caution regime, it is incumbent on the STJ presidency to suspend the effects of decisions by federal state or regional courts that, in a single or last instance, grant a mandatory order, grant injunction or urgent protection in cases brought against the public authorities or whoever represents them.

However - observed Noronha -, who filed the original demand was the government of Bahia, a situation that prevents the knowledge of the suspension request.

Even if this obstacle was overcome, the minister stated that it would not be possible to analyze the request due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court for the cause, since the issue is constitutional.
Powers of the STF

"In this case, the discussion of the case records refers to the definition of competence - whether of the state or federal entity - for administrative action and regulation of the health police power in the current pandemic situation, recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO), an issue based on the Constitution ", he explained.

According to the minister, the constitutional character of the matter is evidenced not only in the decision of the TRF1 and in the initial petition, but also in the recent decision by Minister Marco Aurélio, of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), in the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality 6,341, in which discusses the competence of federative entities in relation to measures to combat coronavirus.

According to the president of the STJ, although the action of the government of Bahia is also based on infraconstitutional provisions, "the constitutional status of the merit discussion of the original feat is undeniable, the STF being responsible for the ultimate and centralized analysis of the issues related to competence federative entities to take normative and administrative measures in the management of the pandemic ".

Source: STJ News. Available at <http://www.stj.jus.br/sites/portalp/Paginas/Comunicacao/Noticias/Natureza-constitucional-da-materia-impede-analise-de-pedido-da-Bahia-para-adotar-barreira-sanitaria-em-aeroportos.aspx>. Viewed on: march 26th, 2020.

.