Formal Request to Adjust the Rules
Minister Kássio Nunes Marques, president of the Superior Electoral Court, sent a request to the president of the Federal Supreme Court, Edson Fachin, to strengthen control over the distribution of urgent actions related to this year's election.
The proposal aims to prevent individual decisions by STF ministers from encroaching on the exclusive attributions of the Electoral Justice.
Meeting and Immediate Motivation
The two magistrates met on Monday (28) in the STF presidency office. The meeting was scheduled on Sunday (27), right after minister Flávio Dino overturned a ruling by minister André Mendonça that ordered the removal of publications about the alleged withdrawal of the title of patroness of Brazil from Our Lady of Aparecida attributed to Flávio Bolsonaro.
Extension of Prevention for Ongoing Cases
Kassio Nunes Marques argues that the requirement for validation by the STF presidency, already in place for archived cases, should also be extended to ongoing proceedings. The goal is to prevent urgent petitions from being distributed by prevention without prior analysis.
In the official letter sent to Fachin, the TSE president warns of the risk of “institutional capture” and violation of the natural judge principle when Supreme Court ministers interfere in matters under the constitutional jurisdiction of the Electoral Justice.
Cited Examples and Concern for Equality
In addition to the case involving Our Lady of Aparecida, the minister mentioned a decision by Gilmar Mendes that used an archived action to validate an adjustment to Bolsa Família. For Kássio, measures like these could compromise equality among candidates during a critical period of the electoral process.
Fachin's Position and Absence of Other Ministers
Fachin heard the demand and stated that he will evaluate it. Ministers Dias Toffoli and André Mendonça, who also sit on the TSE, did not participate in the conversation.
On the same Monday, Flávio Dino brought his decision that overturned Mendonça's order to the STF plenary. It is now up to the president of the Court to set a date for judgment of the matter.