06/27/2024 – 20:03
Dean of the branch of the Federal Justice in Maringá, in the interior of Paraná, judge José Jácomo Gimenes has a discreet profile, but firm opinions on the structure of the Judiciary and its summit, the Federal Supreme Court. Now the target of an order from Minister Alexandre de Moraes, of the Federal Supreme Court, who ordered ‘appropriate measures’ regarding his conduct by condemning the Union to compensate a former state deputy because of the minister’s ‘procedural error’, Jácomo Gimenes has already criticized , on another occasion, what he called the “extravagant concentration of power” of the STF.
Jácomo Gimenes’ assessment of the STF is contained in an article he authored and published in the June and July 2022 edition of Revista Bonijuris. Title: “The top of the Judiciary is inefficient, don’t look up.”
The vehicle is published by Bonijuris, which has publications focused on the legal field.
In the text, Jácomo Gimenes says that Brazil has a “symbiotic and distorted judicial system”. He criticizes the fact that the Supreme Court operates “as if it were a fourth instance, bogged down in lawsuits”, “causing legal uncertainty, due to the lack of firm and timely national jurisprudence”.
On the occasion, the federal judge commented on an interview with an American constitutionalist. Jácomo Gimenes opposed the formatting of the Judiciary leadership, which, in his assessment, “does not work as it should”.
In one passage, the judge evoked the film “Don’t Look Up” – about a meteor that ends up destroying the planet – to indicate that “the actors included in the system’s comfort zone do not want change”.
“Don’t look up, pretend you don’t see the mega problem, the ongoing damage to society is irrelevant, the suffering Brazilian people are irrelevant,” he wrote.
The judge pointed to the STF’s large procedural backlog and indicated that it “makes the Court’s efficiency unfeasible”. He highlighted the “chaos of uncertainty and delay in fundamental issues for the country”.
“As it turned out, with a broad Constitution, regulating almost all aspects of national life and an abundant and highly permissive appeals system, we have our supreme court functioning as if it were a fourth instance, mired in a backlog of almost 60 thousand cases”, evaluated.
In the text, Jácomo Gimenes also addressed the Court’s routine, “granting provisional monocratic injunctions with long-lasting validity, unlimited ‘view’ requests, delaying collegiate judgments by years, blocking the functioning of the judicial system and causing legal uncertainty, due to lack of of firm and timely national jurisprudence”,
“The amount of procedural competence of the Supreme Court is laughable,” he recorded. “In 2020, it received 74 thousand cases (nonsense compared to its counterparts), an incompatible amount for a court of 11 ministers. The numbers are staggering, they make the efficiency and agility expected of our largest court unfeasible. The slowness spreads throughout the Judiciary and generates a ruinous structural defect, good for those who want to escape justice and for those who profit from systemic inefficiency.”
Jácomo Gimenes suggested in the article a “power sharing”. “Power sharing, even when experience says it should be done, is always a struggle. Those who have it do not want to lose. The story is common that the removal of power from the Supreme Court to create the Superior Court of Justice in the 1988 Constitution was a forced delivery, even so it was an ineffective partial concession, only for matters of ordinary law, maintaining an astonishing flow of appeals on constitutional matters to the STF, generating this chaos of uncertainty and delay in matters that are fundamental to the country”, he detailed.
“We have a broad Judiciary, made up of common and specialized courts, federal and state, based on four instances (local court, regional courts, national courts and STF), which can be improved easily, without loss of quality, simply by transferring competence constitutional provision for national courts, ensuring that subjective processes are concluded in the third instance, at most, as occurs in most democracies, freeing our supreme court sufficiently to quickly judge important national issues”, he suggested in the text published in Revista Bonijuris , June and July 2022 edition.
He emphasized. “Until when will the actors in the judicial system, beneficiaries of the slow and bureaucratic Judiciary, maintain this extravagant concentration of power in the Supreme Court, to the clear detriment of the nation?” he asked.
“How will they answer to history for this unjustifiable distortion? Where is the public opinion of the vast majority of legal professionals who want an efficient and fair Judiciary? Jurists, parliamentarians and legal professionals need to talk about this.”
The sentence of Jácomo Gimenes
Last May, on the 28th, Jácomo Gimenes ruled on a lawsuit filed by former Paraná state deputy Homero Marchese (Novo) and ordered the Union to pay compensation of R$20,000 to the politician.
The judge attributed a ‘procedural error’ to Minister Alexandre de Moraes, who did not expressly include the Instagram platform in a decision that unblocked the former deputy’s profiles within the scope of the fake news investigation, at the STF.
In the ruling in which he imposed compensation of R$20,000 on the Union, Jácomo Gimenes pointed out the ‘delay in unblocking’ Homero Marchese’s Instagram.
The former congressman’s Instagram account was only unblocked in May 2023, almost six months after Moraes’ order. In the ruling, the federal judge pointed out an ‘excessive’ delay in “completing the omitted decision”, since Marchese’s defense “immediately” questioned the fact that the then congressman’s Instagram account had not been unblocked.
The pivot of the imbroglio, Marchese’s profiles on social media were blocked by Moraes in November 2022. A month later, the minister released the then-deputy’s accounts on X and Facebook, but did not mention Instagram.
The Federal Attorney General’s Office appealed the conviction, through a complaint filed directly with Moraes’ office. The AGU alleged that the “criticisms and disagreements” in the first-degree court decision “directly interfere” in the conduct of the fake news investigation, “challenging the powers” of the STF.
This Wednesday, the 27th, the minister overturned Jácomo Gimenes’ sentence and sent an order to the National Justice Council for ‘measures’ regarding the federal judge’s conduct.
In Moraes’ assessment, Jácomo Gimenes’ decision ‘challenged’ the STF’s competence and the “manner of conduct” of the investigation, which would have been harmed. “It is unthinkable to say that a decision handed down in a Special Court can judge the conduct and legitimacy of judicial acts taken in a process currently being carried out in this Federal Supreme Court”, attacked the minister.
#Judge #attributed #error #Moraes #criticized #extravagant #concentration #power #STF