By Ricardo Luiz
The president of Brazil's Superior Court of Justice (STJ), Luis Felipe Salomão, said on Thursday (Nov. 12) that impeaching justices of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), Brazil's highest court, would not resolve the crisis facing the country's judiciary. In his view, the real problem is different and much bigger.
Salomão: a systemic problem with no name and no face
According to Salomão, Brazil is going through a structural crisis that will not be fixed by removing judges. "This will not help solve what we are talking about here, which is a systemic problem, which has no name, no face," he said.
He argued that removals would not "fix the system" and that they would "deepen a crisis that will not be good for the Brazilian judicial system."
The caseload numbers behind Brazil's judicial crisis
For the STJ president, the number one enemy of the courts is the sheer volume of cases. He said 40 million new cases enter the Brazilian system every year, bringing the total in progress to 80 million. By his estimate, that is one case for every two inhabitants, a pressure he said has no parallel in other countries.
The load is heavy even for the STJ's own justices. Salomão said each one receives between 2,000 and 2,500 cases a month. That would require a decision every seven minutes, assuming five working days a week and eight hours a day.
The STJ's mission is to standardize the interpretation of the law applied by about 18,000 judges across the country. When the volume explodes, he suggested, the citizen waiting for an answer pays the price.
Caiado sees impeachment as a 'remedy'
On the other side of the debate, Gov. Ronaldo Caiado said everyone who commits a crime must be punished and that impeaching STF justices could be a "remedy" for impunity. Sen. Cury argued that the Senate should discuss the issue and said he favors an STF with nine justices.
The debate has also reached the presidential palace. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, of the Workers' Party (PT), defended discussing fixed terms for STF justices after the crisis that hit the Court. STF Justice Gilmar Mendes, for his part, downplayed the defense of impeachment made by right-wing Senate candidates.
Leaks, harassment and the STJ's response
Asked about episodes that shook the judiciary's image, such as investigations linked to Banco Master, allegations of sentences being sold and sexual harassment cases, Salomão defended the transparency adopted by the court.
On the leaks of sealed decisions, which led to the arrest of a former employee, he said the inquiry began inside the STJ itself. According to him, the appeals court judges involved were removed immediately and the Federal Police (PF) were called in. The investigation so far has shown that STJ justices were only victims in the episode. The court's technology area also changed, with the dismissal of its former head, new layers of cyber protection, progressive protocols for accessing draft votes and automated tools to track access.
On the sexual harassment allegations involving members of the court, Salomão said internal administrative procedures were reviewed by the full panel and that disciplinary proceedings follow the institution's legal prerogatives.
Why it matters
In Brazil, the Constitution provides for the impeachment of STF justices, with the Senate responsible for the process. Pressure for removals, along with proposals such as fixed terms and changing the Court's size, is now a live issue in Congress and in the run-up to the elections. Salomão's warning about overload comes from the head of the court that sits just below the STF in the judicial hierarchy.
Salomão said the STJ has adopted recent adjustments, such as a relevance filter, and that the goal is to give citizens an impartial answer within a reasonable time. Whether that promise of speed will convince those who have already lost patience with the courts remains to be seen.
VDD Analysis
Salomão's warning about the judiciary's overload is legitimate and deserves attention, but it cannot serve as an excuse to shield those who err. Impeachment is an instrument provided for in the Constitution, and the public is right to demand accountability from those who occupy the highest seats of the judiciary. Reforming the system and demanding accountability are not mutually exclusive paths. What cannot happen is for the crisis to become an issue that no one has a duty to face.
