Decision Context

Legal scholar Tiago Pavinatto emphasized that Law 1079/1950, which regulates impeachment, was incorporated into the 1988 Constitution. The Supreme Federal Court (STF) itself recognized this incorporation during the Collor case (1992), and Justice Gilmar Mendes admitted the law’s validity in 2016 when analyzing Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment. Furthermore, Congress revised the statute in 2000 through Law 10.028, adapting it to the current constitutional framework. Therefore, when Gilmar claims the law has “expired,” Pavinatto classifies the statement as a lie, fake news, and deliberate obfuscation, marked by serious omissions that undermine the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances.

Critical Analysis

• Institutional shielding: The thesis of “expiration” is not merely a legal interpretation; it operates as a political maneuver to shield the STF from accountability and external oversight.
• Smoke screen: By shifting the debate to an alleged structural flaw in the law, attention is diverted from recent scandals involving the government, thereby reducing public and media pressure.
• Illusory hope: The narrative encourages the opposition to invest in drafting a new law, presented as more effective, while creating false expectations of institutional resolution.
• Predictable outcome: In the proposed scenario, the STF would declare the new law unconstitutional, nullifying any gains and reaffirming judicial supremacy over impeachment proceedings.
• Authoritarian risk: The systemic effect would be the weakening of the Legislative branch and the capture of the system by a power without counterbalances, effectively imprisoning society in a form of judicial dictatorship.

Critical Conclusion

Gilmar Mendes’ maneuver, by denying the practical validity of Law 1079/1950, contradicts previous STF positions and his own past statements. Moreover, it functions as a strategy of shielding and manipulation of the public agenda. The implicit promise of a “better law” pushes the opposition into an institutional dead end, whose outcome would likely be invalidation by the Supreme Court itself. Thus, the result is the consolidation of an imbalanced arrangement, with the Judiciary occupying a hegemonic role and democracy reduced to form without substance.

CTA: Want to follow critical analyses on the STF’s role and the risks of concentrated power? Discover other articles by Pedro Freitas and keep your critical lens on Brazilian democracy.

External Links and References:

• Pavio Curto Program on Metrópoles – official announcement of Tiago Pavinatto’s show.
• Pavio Curto live on YouTube (Metrópoles channel) – livestreams and episodes.
• Tiago Pavinatto Profile (Wikipedia) – biography, career, and media presence.