The Civitas Association for Citizenship and Culture has filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Federal Court (STF) to annul the Senate vote that rejected the nomination of Attorney General Jorge Messias for a seat on the Court. The organization wants a new vote, with open ballots. This information was published by the legal news portal Jota.
In the Argument of Non-Compliance with Fundamental Precept (ADPF) filed with the STF, the Association alleges irregularities in the Senate plenary session that blocked the nomination made by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT).
According to the lawsuit, the process was allegedly compromised by the supposed anticipation of the result. Lawyer Gisela Britto, who represents the association, argues that the president of the Senate, Davi Alcolumbre (União-AP), prematurely indicated the outcome by stating "it will lose by eight" before the official count.
According to the organization, this statement would compromise the secrecy and freedom of the vote, as well as indicate possible manipulation of the result. The association also claims that there were flaws in the procedure and asks the Supreme Federal Court to recognize the nullity of the vote, ordering that a new analysis be carried out in an open manner.
However, constitutional law experts consulted by Jota believe that the action has little chance of succeeding.
Professor Luiz Fernando Gomes Esteves, from Insper, states that the association should not be considered eligible to bring this type of action before the Supreme Federal Court (STF). According to him, the Court has a restrictive understanding of which entities can challenge acts of this nature. Similarly, Professor Diego Werneck Arguelhes also believes that the case may not even be analyzed due to a lack of standing.
Professor Alessandro Soares, from Mackenzie Presbyterian University, reinforces this understanding. According to him, in addition to not meeting the required criteria, the organization failed to demonstrate a direct link between its activities and the subject of the lawsuit.
Even if the case were reviewed, legal experts consider a change in the outcome unlikely. They point out that the Constitution provides for a secret ballot for this type of decision in the Senate, precisely to protect parliamentarians from political pressure.
Another point highlighted is that anticipating a possible outcome, common in the political arena, would not be sufficient proof of irregularity in the voting process.
The rejection of Jorge Messias was historic. Nominated by Lula, he was approved by the Constitution and Justice Committee (CCJ), but was ultimately blocked in the plenary session by 42 votes against, 34 in favor, and one abstention. It was the first time since 1894 that the Senate had rejected a nominee to the Supreme Court.
Before the vote, Messias's name already faced political resistance. The process was stalled in the Senate for months and only moved forward after recent negotiations by the government, which still did not guarantee sufficient support.
After the result, Messias stated that he had worked for months for the approval and had spoken with most senators, but said he had been the target of attacks aimed at damaging his image.
The president of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), Justice Edson Fachin, stated at the time that the Court respects the Senate's decision, highlighting the constitutional prerogative of the Legislative branch in this type of choice.
Leave a comment