In a notable development in the Brazilian legal landscape, the country’s Federal Senate recently gave the green light to a constitutional amendment aiming to curtail the power of the Supreme Federal Court (STF). According to the specifics of the amendment, PEC 8/2021, the court will no longer be able to pass preliminary judgements on cases without a majority agreement from at least six of the court’s eleven members. This move is seen to exemplify the deepening friction between Brazil’s judicial and legislative entities.
Also included as part of the amendments are changes that obligate the court to decide a case on its merits within six months of granting a precautionary decision, subsequent to which the case will assume a priority status. The modifications also extend the timeline for decisions that could potentially impact public policy or lead to further government expenses.
PEC 8/2021 now progresses to the Chamber of Deputies for approval. A similar amendment is also in the pipeline at this legislative juncture. The passage of PEC 8/2021 would have the direct result of prohibiting the court’s ministers from issuing unilateral preliminary injunctions without first obtaining a review from a court majority. This move was justified by the Senate to address the issue of an average two-year gap between preliminary decisions and a plenary statement, often leading to perceived judicial gridlocks.
Tensions have been running high between the legislature and the country’s Supreme Court in recent years, particularly after the court suspended several legislative proposals and executive orders. One major bone of contention occurred last September when the court invalidated a proposal that sought to delineate continuous occupancy requirements for indigenous land claims, which caused a ripple in the socio-political fabric of the country.
Brazil, with Jair Bolsonaro at its helm since 2019, has witnessed a rapid pace of constitutional changes, with an average of 7.5 amendments being made per year. This frequent alteration of the constitution since 1988, though, has led to concerns; respected scholars voice fears that the recent amendments could jeopardize fundamental constitutional principles and risk overshadowing constitutional supremacy with politically-motivated actions.
More details on this subject can be accessed via the original article here.