The STF and the acquittal of Gleisi Hoffmann
Article on the acquittal of Senator Gleisi Hoffmann for corruption and money laundering by the STF, Folha de S. Paulo, 2018.
Translated from the original.
Senator Gleisi Hoffmann (PT-PR), acquitted by the Supreme Court – Pedro Ladeira – 19 Jun 18/Folhapress
The STF dismissed the complaint that charged corruption and money laundering against the president of the PT, Senator Gleisi Hoffmann. What can be said right away about this decision, before the publication of the judgment, which will be indispensable for assessing the votes and technical grounds in their real extent and depth?
Constructive and open criticism by society and the legal community of court decisions is a formula for improving the civilizing process. It is up to the media and specialists to provide technical, legal, philosophical, political and sociological scrutiny of court decisions.
That maxim that a court decision is not to be discussed, only complied with, evidently does not exist. The quality of judicial decisions, whether condemnatory or acquitting, as well as the acts of public authorities, are all always under society’s scrutiny.
These analyses must take place in a democratic environment of inter-institutional respect. It is impossible for anyone to simply disregard a court order because he disagrees with it. Or to launch a criminal attack on institutions because he does not accept a court’s understanding.
It would not be surprising for radical sectors to attack STF justices, labeling them with heavy adjectives, for acquitting Workers’ Party (PT) leaders. Many leaders did exactly that to magistrates who convicted PT leaders, and some went so far as to label both the Supreme Court and Congress “coup plotters” for endorsing the impeachment.
However, the independence of the Judiciary is a pillar of democracy. Hence it becomes imperative to safeguard this guarantee essential to the Rule of Law and to place trust in institutions, demanding of them the full performance of their constitutional functions.
The STF faces the challenge of showing coherence and solidity in its case law, standardizing controversial theses in the plenary. It would make no sense for litigants to depend on the luck or bad luck of landing in one Panel or another in order to fit within a given legal thesis.
The Public Prosecution Service, for its part, must reaffirm its investigative power, showing results to society. And act ever closer to the police and to other institutions with investigative space, so as to set proceedings in motion only when there is a high probability of success.
The STF, in Brazil, has proved to be an independent court, despite the criticism that many of its decisions may deserve. In a democracy, judicial decisions should be criticized and publicly debated, if only so that magistrates may improve. What should not be tolerated is the method of deconstructing institutions.
The complaint against Gleisi Hoffmann, according to the STF’s decision, lacked consistency, for lack of material evidence of corruption and money laundering. The Plea Cooperation Law (art. 4, § 16) provides that “no conviction shall be handed down based solely on the statements of a cooperating agent.”
There is no doubt that no one can be convicted on the basis of plea bargains alone, even if cross-corroborated among themselves. The informant has an interest in the case and gives partial testimony. Hence the importance of corroborating elements, which must be gathered still at the investigative stage.
How many complaints will still be judged well-founded or unfounded? How many will lack evidence or fail for other reasons? How many plea agreements will have elements of corroboration? These questions will emerge as the Judiciary examines the facts. It will be important for everyone to stay alert.
Fábio Medina Osório
Lawyer and former minister-head of the Office of the Attorney General of Brazil (May/Sept. 2016, Temer government)