STF counteracts The Economist, says it supports Moraes and that there is no crisis of confidence

The Federal Supreme Court (STF) reacted on Saturday, 19, to criticism of the article of The Economist magazine that says that Minister Alexandre de Moraes has “excessive powers” and that the court faces “growing questions.” In a note signed by the president of the Court, Minister Luis Roberto Barroso, the Supreme Court defended Moaes’ performance and denied that there is a confidence crisis in the institution.

“The focus on the story corresponds more to the narrative of those who tried the coup d’état than to the real fact that Brazil lives a full democracy, with a rule of law, brakes and counterweights and respect for fundamental rights,” the court said.

The English magazine stated that the Supreme could aggravate his confidence crisis against Brazilians if the trial of former President Jair Bolsonaro (PL) followed in the first class of the court, rather than being taken to the plenary. The text also criticized Barroso, ministers Gilmar Mendes and Dias Toffoli, and pointed out that Moraes has “excessive powers” in court decisions.

Read more: Excessive power in the STF threatens Brazilian democracy, says The Economist

In response, the Supreme Court stated that the trial of criminal proceedings against authorities follows the rite provided for in the criminal proceedings, which determines that these cases are analyzed by the classes, not by the plenary. “Changing this is that it would be exceptional,” said the note signed by Barroso.

Barroso countered the suggestion of suspending Moraes from Bolsonaro’s trial. According to him, the former president offended almost all members of the Supreme and, “if the alleged animosity in relation to him could be a criterion of suspicion, it would be enough for the defendant to attack the court so that he could not be tried.” He also classified Moraes as a judge who “fulfills his role with commitment and courage, with the support of the court, not individually.”

The Supreme Court also denied that there is a confidence crisis in the institution and cited Datafolha data, released in March 2024 to support the argument. In mentioning the data, however, Barroso used the percentage attributed to the judiciary as a whole, whose confidence is higher, compared to the court, with 24% who trust a lot, 44% who trust a little and 30% who do not trust.

According to the survey, 21% of respondents said they trust the Supreme Court a lot, 44% trust a little and 30% do not trust. For the court this demonstrates that the majority of the population maintains some level of confidence in the court.

The note also pointed out that monocratic decisions cited by the magazine were later ratified by the other ministers. Among them, the suspension of X (former Twitter), which was determined by the absence of legal representative of the company in Brazil, not by some content published on the platform. The measure was reversed after the indication of a representative.

“All decisions of content removal were properly motivated and involved crime, instigation to crime or preparation for coup. The president of the court never said that the court ‘Defeated (defeated) Bolsonaro’. It was the voters,” the STF said.

Barroso also stated that although the report quoting “some of the threats suffered by democracy” in the country, he failed to mention attempts to invas the three powers of the three powers in the attacks of January 8 by an “extremist -inflated crowd” as well as attempted bomb explosion at the STF and capital airport. The note also cites the murder plan of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and vice president Geraldo Alckmin (PSB), as well as Minister Alexandre de Moraes.

“It was necessary an independent and active court to avoid collapse of institutions, as occurred in several countries in the world of Eastern Europe to Latin America,” Barroso concluded.