05/24/2024 – 21:19
In a virtual trial that began this Friday (24), the Federal Supreme Court (STF) will discuss issues of transparency involving federal intervention in public security in Rio de Janeiro, which took place in 2018. The case will be assessed by the five ministers of the Second Panel. They must present their votes by June 4th.
The federal intervention was decreed by the then President of the Republic, Michel Temer, and lasted from February to December 2018. The action, which was initially processed in the Federal Regional Court of the 2nd Region (TRF2), was filed by the Federal Public Ministry (MPF) in 2021. It points to the omission of the Union and the state of Rio de Janeiro in their duties of transparency and accountability during the period, especially related to the actions that took place in Baixada Fluminense.
Related news:
Temer decreed the intervention in response to different violent episodes recorded in the capital of Rio de Janeiro. The measure was taken two days after the end of carnival, when several police incidents led the then governor of Rio, Luiz Fernando Pezão, to admit flaws in public security planning.
It was the first time in the country that Article 34 of the 1988 Constitution was activated, a device that provides for situations in which it is possible to carry out federal intervention. With the decree, Rio’s then Secretary of State for Security, Roberto Sá, was removed from office and General Walter Braga Netto, who was head of the Eastern Military Command (CML), was appointed intervenor. In practice, while the intervention lasted, he was responsible for public security in the state, with the Military Police, the Civil Police and the Fire Department falling under his jurisdiction.
In the action, the MPF demanded that detailed reports be carried out on the measures adopted, including statistical, budgetary data and qualitative assessments. It also requested information on the planning of public security policies adopted since the end of the intervention. It also requests that the Union and the state of Rio de Janeiro develop action and planning protocols to address identified deficiencies, as well as create democratic channels of participation and social control, which contribute to preventing scenarios of popular dissatisfaction similar to the one that led to the federal intervention .
According to the MPF, the action was an outcome of a civil inquiry that revealed problems in the conduct of military personnel participating in operations in Baixada Fluminense. Complaints were received by the institution narrating approaches in which firearms were pointed at community residents, as well as the carrying out of helicopter flights over homes. There were also reports of soldiers covering their faces by wearing ninja caps. The action made reference to data from a report produced by the Institute for Applied Economic Research (Ipea), which found an increase in the number of homicides resulting from police action during the federal intervention.
The TRF2, however, rejected the MPF’s requests. Based on the statements from the Union and the state of Rio de Janeiro, the court considered that there was no omission or non-compliance with the duties of transparency and accountability. According to the understandings adopted in the first and second instance sentences, the Judiciary should only order the Executive Branch to implement public policies in exceptional situations, such as in cases of inertia or manifest deficiency.
The issue reached the STF in November last year after receiving a special appeal filed by the MPF against the second instance decision. Minister Nunes Marques, in a monocratic analysis, maintained the TRF2 sentence. For him, meeting the requests made would require the Judiciary to assume roles that belong to the Executive. Now, it will be up to the Second Panel to reiterate or reform the decision.
For the MPF, the Judiciary cannot remain inactive in the violation of a fundamental right provided for in the Constitution, as is the case with the right to public security. The institution maintains that federal intervention left many questions unanswered.
In the case file, the state of Rio de Janeiro maintained that it is up to the Union to provide information about the time during which the federal intervention lasted. He added that, after this period, he continued his work reducing crime rates, including violent lethality in Baixada Fluminense.
The Union stated that there was no lack of publicity or attention to social demands, considering that several communication channels were made available and the appropriate information was presented.
#STF #analyzes #transparency #federal #intervention #Rio