Recently, former president Jair Bolsonaro’s custody hearing took place without Justice Alexandre de Moraes present. Consequently, serious questions emerged regarding legality, impartiality, and respect for constitutional rights. By appointing auxiliary judge Luciana Yuki Fugishita Sorrentino to maintain preventive detention, Moraes implemented a measure that many critics argue violates fundamental principles of the Rule of Law.

Appointment of an auxiliary judge and legal concerns

Auxiliary judge Luciana Yuki Fugishita Sorrentino conducted the hearing via videoconference, while the defense rushed to provide explanations regarding the alleged tampering with the electronic ankle monitor. Therefore, the legitimacy of such an appointment raises valid concerns. For instance, can an auxiliary judge without full autonomy decide on the freedom of a former president? Moreover, although the procedure does not replace or review the merits of the original decision, it indirectly consolidated the detention.

Uninvestigated allegations and impunity

Former aide Tagliaferro reported crimes allegedly committed by the auxiliary judge and members of Moraes’ office. However, these claims have not received proper investigation. This lack of scrutiny strengthens the perception of impunity. Furthermore, it suggests that judicial decisions may reflect personal or political interests rather than purely legal criteria.

Ankle monitor violation and alleged flight risk

The defense had until the afternoon of November 23 to explain the tampering with the electronic monitor, which clearly showed burn marks and signs of manipulation. Nevertheless, Bolsonaro is elderly, physically vulnerable, and under strict police surveillance. Consequently, the claim of flight risk, combined with the actions of the auxiliary judge, demonstrates that the process was conducted in a questionable and disproportionate manner.

Transparency and judicial oversight

The custody hearing video will not be released, and only the official record will be added to the case. Therefore, public oversight remains limited, making it difficult to verify legal guarantees. As a result, the lack of transparency is particularly concerning, especially because the case involves a prominent political figure and decisions that directly impact democracy.

Conclusion: A warning for Brazilian justice

In summary, this case highlights serious problems: the appointment of auxiliary judge Luciana Yuki Fugishita Sorrentino for critical decisions, the absence of investigation into credible allegations, and the questionable handling of preventive detention. Thus, society must closely follow developments and demand transparent, impartial, and legally grounded justice.

To stay informed on nationally significant cases and critical analyses of Brazil’s judicial system, continue following our content. Understanding how justice works is essential for safeguarding rights and protecting democracy.