Is Bolsonaro’s house arrest decision reasonable? Jurists explain

The decision of Minister Alexandre de Moraes of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), who decreed on Monday (4) the house arrest of former President Jair Bolsonaro (PL), rekindled the debate between jurists about the reasonableness of the measure and its legal and political developments.

For Professor Rubens Beçak of USP Law School, it is a clear message from the STF: the non-compliance with the restrictions imposed on Bolsonaro will no longer be tolerated. “The court does not admit, in any way, the overcoming of the limitations imposed on the former president,” he says.

According to Beçak, the decision was mainly motivated by posts made by Bolsonaro’s children, especially Senator Flávio Bolsonaro (PL-RJ), who released videos considered violators of precautionary measures.

“Evidence of non -compliance, with clear dissemination of posts – especially by Flávio – represents disrespect for the court decision and the judiciary itself,” says the professor.

Proportionality

In the evaluation of Professor Marcelo Crespo, coordinator of the law course at ESPM, the measure is legally grounded and seeks to preserve the authority of justice in the face of repeated infractions.

“The decision reaffirms the severity of non -compliance, especially the prohibition of direct or indirect use of social networks. The Supreme Court understood that there was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the court order through the instrumentalization of allies, such as children and parliamentarians, to convey messages that violate the court and promote misinformation,” he explains.

According to Crespo, by prohibiting mobile phone use and restricting visits only to family members and lawyers, the Supreme Court acted with proportionality: “From a legal point of view, the decision is solid and well grounded in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the law of criminal organizations. Politically, it is a clear message that the STF will not tolerate the use of networks to corrode their decisions.”

Clash

Despite considering the technical and justified decision, Curly warns of its institutional effects.

“The incisive language and the breadth of restrictions deserve attention, especially by the impacts on freedom of expression and the narrative of persecution. In times of institutional normality, this measure could be seen as excessive,” he ponders.

“We are facing a clash between freedom of expression and exceptional measures. Minister Alexandre chose to restrict, given the recurring attacks to the Court. In another context, the measure could be considered too restrictive.”