The Novo Party introduced a Constitutional Amendment Proposal (PEC) to allow any citizen to initiate impeachment proceedings against justices of the Supreme Federal Court (STF). The initiative directly responds to a monocratic decision by Justice Gilmar Mendes, who restricted this prerogative to the Attorney General and raised the threshold in the Senate from a simple majority to two-thirds of votes.

Novo’s Argument

According to the party, Mendes’ ruling contradicts the 1950 Impeachment Law, which explicitly states that any citizen may denounce the president or ministers of state for crimes of responsibility. Novo argues that the decision introduces institutional insecurity and disrupts republican coherence by unilaterally redefining legislative powers.

The Monocratic Power Problem

This episode highlights a recurring issue: the excessive use of monocratic rulings by STF justices in matters of high political and institutional impact. By reinterpreting laws incorporated into the 1988 Constitution, the Court assumes the role of a negative legislator without the collective debate that should characterize such decisions. This fuels the perception that the judiciary acts as a political actor rather than a constitutional guardian.

Institutional Implications

• Separation of powers: Mendes’ ruling is seen as direct interference in legislative prerogatives.
• Legal uncertainty: Sudden changes in impeachment rules weaken institutional predictability.
• Popular legitimacy: The PEC seeks to restore citizens’ right to denounce, reinforcing republican principles.
• Judicialization of politics: The case reinforces the trend of the STF becoming the arbiter of political disputes, heightening tensions among branches of government.

What to Watch

• PEC progress: To move forward, it must gather 171 signatures from federal deputies.
• STF’s reaction: Possible institutional resistance to the proposal, leading to new legal clashes.
• Public debate: The discussion on judicial limits and accountability of justices is likely to intensify.
• Political impact: The PEC may become a rallying point for parties advocating greater oversight of the STF.

Critical Conclusion

This case exposes the fragility of Brazil’s balance of powers. By imposing restrictions through a monocratic ruling, the STF reinforces perceptions of judicial activism and provokes legislative reactions such as Novo’s PEC. More than a legal dispute, it is an institutional stress test: how far does the Supreme Court’s authority extend, and what is the real space for citizen participation in holding justices accountable?

CTA: Want to follow the developments of this PEC and its impact on Brazil’s institutional balance? Discover other articles by Pedro Freitas and keep your critical eye on Brazilian politics.