STF decides that the State should not pay compensation for the opinions of parliamentarians

The Federal Supreme Court (STF) defined that the State cannot be legally obliged to pay compensation amounts relating to opinions, statements or votes given by councilors, deputies and senators, which are protected by parliamentary immunity. The decision was taken based on the judgment of an extraordinary appeal filed in 2004.

The request related to a case from the same year filed at the Court of Justice of Ceará (TJCE) by the then judge of Canindé (CE), Hortênsio Augusto Pires Nogueira, against the State. At the time, the magistrate was accused of corruption during a speech by then state deputy João Alfredo (PT-CE).

For Minister Luís Roberto Barroso, rapporteur of the appeal at the Supreme Court, condemning the State for acts like João’s could generate censorship or intimidate parliamentarians, hindering the progress of public debate and the activity of the Legislature. “Allowing the State’s objective civil liability, in this context, would create incentives to silence, dilute or minimize criticism”, stated the judge.

Barroso also assesses that condemning the State would generate, through economic means, risks of pressure and undue interference in parliamentary activity, something that the Constitution of 88 intended to avoid with immunity.

Barroso highlighted, however, that immunity “does not protect those who use it as a shield for abusive demonstrations, totally disconnected from the legislative function”. In these cases, the parliamentarian can, yes, respond civilly or criminally.

In the case in question, the minister explained that, if the deputy from Ceará had exceeded the limits of immunity, the action should have been filed directly against him, and not against the State. The decision was taken unanimously.