Post by xyz3000 on Feb 12, 2024 9:45:30 GMT
In 2005, the Federal Supreme Court was accused numerous times and by numerous public figures of interfering in the affairs of the other branches of the Republic. The accusations were fueled, mainly, by decisions of the STF that contradicted measures taken by the Parliamentary Commissions of Inquiry, the political stars of the year. Due to an action that had repercussions in the political sphere, the Supreme Court was more in the spotlight and gained more space in the media, which also began to show the Court's decisions with more transparency. But, according to constitutional lawyer João Antonio Wiegerinck , this remarkable performance should not be confused with an invasion of jurisdiction.
This is because the Supreme Court only fulfilled the role of calling the other powers to their obligations, exercising one of its main functions, as guardian of the Constitution, as provided for in article 102 of the Charter. The accusations of invasion of jurisdiction were shown to be Estonia Email List unfair and the allegations supporting them false. Take as an example the issue of breaches of banking, tax and telephone secrecy decreed by the CPIs — many of which were revoked by the STF, in response to requests for a Writ of Mandamus presented by those affected by the measures.
The Legal Consultant carried out a survey that shows that, until the last day of 2005, the Supreme Court received 16 requests for a Writ of Mandamus to suspend breaches of confidentiality decreed by CPMI dos Correios. In eight cases, the Court decided to maintain the breach of confidentiality. In another eight, he ordered parliamentarians to suspend the breach of confidentiality. The result makes it clear that the Supreme Court's decisions are not always against the interests of parliamentarians. It also shows that they follow a logic: in eight cases, the judges judged that the process for breaking confidentiality was followed correctly, the reasons given were consistent and were well founded. On eight other occasions, they considered that parliamentarians did not justify their requests and, therefore, the breach was not justified.
This is because the Supreme Court only fulfilled the role of calling the other powers to their obligations, exercising one of its main functions, as guardian of the Constitution, as provided for in article 102 of the Charter. The accusations of invasion of jurisdiction were shown to be Estonia Email List unfair and the allegations supporting them false. Take as an example the issue of breaches of banking, tax and telephone secrecy decreed by the CPIs — many of which were revoked by the STF, in response to requests for a Writ of Mandamus presented by those affected by the measures.
The Legal Consultant carried out a survey that shows that, until the last day of 2005, the Supreme Court received 16 requests for a Writ of Mandamus to suspend breaches of confidentiality decreed by CPMI dos Correios. In eight cases, the Court decided to maintain the breach of confidentiality. In another eight, he ordered parliamentarians to suspend the breach of confidentiality. The result makes it clear that the Supreme Court's decisions are not always against the interests of parliamentarians. It also shows that they follow a logic: in eight cases, the judges judged that the process for breaking confidentiality was followed correctly, the reasons given were consistent and were well founded. On eight other occasions, they considered that parliamentarians did not justify their requests and, therefore, the breach was not justified.