STF discusses session format to analyze PF report on minister Alexandre de Moraes

There is no closed guide in the rules of the STF - Federal Supreme Court with a step-by-step guide to the session. The discussion in the plenary of a Federal Police report that raises suspicions about a Court minister is unprecedented. The president of the STF is the one who will have to organize the rite. The ministers' conversations with Edson Fachin this Thursday (10) also dealt with the format of the session.

Fachin argues that it should be open, like the trials in the STF plenary. Minister André Mendonça is expected to present the PF report on the relationship between banker Daniel Vorcaro and minister Alexandre de Moraes, and that Moraes will defend himself. But there are many questions to be answered. It is not clear whether the Attorney General of the Republic, Paulo Gonet, who is also mentioned in the PF report, will participate in the session. There are doubts whether Moraes should vote on a possible request to open an investigation against himself; whether Mendonça, who suggested taking the report to the plenary, should vote; and whether Minister Dias Toffoli, who admitted being a partner in the company that sold a stake in a resort to funds linked to banker Daniel Vorcaro, will participate.

"The response from the Federal Supreme Court must be legal. If there is evidence of criminal practices by anyone - and here I am not necessarily just talking about ministers of the STF or also ministers of the Supreme Federal Court -, the response must always be to investigate. The act of investigation, which does not mean prosecuting someone, which does not mean, much less, punishing someone. The act of investigating is very beneficial for the institution of the Federal Supreme Court and the judiciary as a whole."

"It is essential that we return to the feeling that what the Supreme Court is doing is the application of the best legal technique. And for this to happen, the Supreme Court will not achieve this by closing itself off. It is the opposite. It is by opening up, dialoguing with society based on the decision, demonstrating which positions are in conflict at that moment, and what the legal solution is in the view of each minister. But it is important that this debate, in a transparent way, is presented to society", says Álvaro Jorge, professor at FGV Law - RJ.