Congress moved with the project that limits Supreme Federal Court (STF) decisions following the first round of elections. On Wednesday (09/10), the House’s Constitution and Justice Committee approved two proposals to amend the Constitution, aimed at curbing the power of the STF. The proposed amendments seek to limit the scope and validity of individual decisions made by the Court’s justices, requiring collective review for laws, and authorizing only the STF president to make decisions alone, and only during judicial recesses, with the condition that they undergo collective analysis once the Court resumes activities. However, the move was still followed by a significant sign of a reduction in tensions regarding the disputes between Congress and Brazil’s main court. This became clear after Federal Chamber President Arthur Lira stated that among the three projects aiming at the STF, the least limiting was the one to advance.
This Content Is Only For Subscribers
To unlock this content, subscribe to INTERLIRA Reports.
How it Works Today
Currently, justices are allowed to rule individually on any issue involving the other branches of government and administrative bodies. Additionally, through preliminary injunctions, they can annul the effect of laws approved at all federal levels—municipal, state, and federal.
What Would Change if the Amendment Were Approved
The proposed amendment stipulates that individual rulings (monocratic decisions) would no longer be allowed to suspend the effect of laws or norms of general impact passed by Congress and sanctioned by the President. Instead, these decisions would require collective deliberation. Only the president of the STF would retain the authority to make individual decisions, and only during judicial recesses. Moreover, these decisions would need to be reviewed by the full Court within 30 days after the judiciary resumes its activities.
Suspension of STF Decisions Under the New Law
Congress would be granted the power to suspend STF rulings if it believes the Court has overstepped its jurisdiction or introduced innovations into the legal system. To overturn a ruling, two-thirds of both the House (342 votes) and the Senate (54 votes) would be required—the same quorum necessary for approving an impeachment process.
Impeachment Grounds
The law also introduces five new grounds for impeachment of STF ministers, expanding the reasons that could justify the removal from office.
Unconstitutionality Claims
In private discussions, judges argue that the proposed amendment, particularly the limitation on individual rulings, violates the Constitution by restricting citizens’ access to justice. They claim that many legal requests are resolved through individual decisions, which are crucial for expediting cases. Requiring all rulings to be collective, they warn, could lead to delays that would negatively impact society.
STF Response
In response to pressure from the Congress, STF ministers agreed to limit the use of monocratic decisions but advocated for the court itself to lead these reforms. The ministers aim to ensure that more significant matters, such as law suspensions, are decided collectively, preserving the STF’s constitutional role and addressing political criticisms.
Analysis:
The growing tension between Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (STF) and Congress underscores an institutional power struggle that has been brewing for years. At the heart of this friction is the increasingly prominent role of the judiciary in political matters, particularly through the use of monocratic decisions by STF ministers. These decisions, which allow individual justices to rule unilaterally on significant issues, have sparked growing resentment within Congress, where many legislators view them as examples of judicial overreach.
The recent proposals to curb monocratic rulings and empower Congress to suspend STF decisions are a direct challenge to the Court’s authority. These amendments aim to curtail the autonomy of individual justices, particularly in cases of national importance, and reinforce Congress’s legislative control. By demanding collective deliberations on such matters, the amendments seek to limit the scope of individual rulings and ensure that critical legal interpretations are the result of a broader consensus within the STF.
Moreover, this push from Congress can be directly linked to STF’s recent decision to block the controversial secret budget mechanism that allowed lawmakers to distribute substantial public funds without transparency. This ruling, which was widely seen as an important step toward curbing corruption and promoting fiscal accountability, infuriated segments of Congress. Many legislators saw it as an infringement on their prerogative to manage public funds, and this ongoing institutional clash highlights the deeper tensions between the judiciary’s role in enforcing accountability and Congress’s desire to maintain control over budgetary decisions.
