{"id":25535,"date":"2025-08-04T13:34:01","date_gmt":"2025-08-04T16:34:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fundacaofhc.org.br\/?post_type=debate&p=25535"},"modified":"2026-01-14T13:25:12","modified_gmt":"2026-01-14T16:25:12","slug":"series-brazil-in-the-view-of-public-leaders-with-minister-edson-fachin-president-of-brazilian-federal-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"debate","link":"https:\/\/fundacaofhc.org.br\/en\/debate\/series-brazil-in-the-view-of-public-leaders-with-minister-edson-fachin-president-of-brazilian-federal-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Series \u201cBrazil through the eyes of public leaders\u201d, with Minister Edson Fachin, President of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\u201cI believe it is simplistic to imagine that it is the Supreme Federal Court that is under attack (in Brazil). What is under attack is an institution that is working to curb violations of the 1988 Federal Constitution and curb attempts to ruin our democracy. If it were another institution, it would also be under attack. Therefore, what is under attack is the Democratic Rule of Law, the republican Constitution that made it possible to reinstate democracy in Brazil in 1988,” said STF Minister Edson Fachin in a lecture at the Funda\u00e7\u00e3o Fernando Henrique Cardoso on August 4, 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his initial presentation of about 30 minutes, Fachin \u2013 who took office as President of the Supreme Court on September 29th \u2013 said that the Supreme Court needs to exercise strategic self-restraint, intervening to protect democracy, but not to govern it. “The Supreme Court is not the sole arbiter of the democratic game. It is clear that the Court plays a crucial role in protecting the Federal Constitution and containing authoritarian risks, but the vitality of Brazilian democracy requires that all actors \u2013 the executive, legislative, parties, press, and civil society \u2013 act with restraint and within the rules of the game,” he said.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Minister Edson Fachin in debate at the Funda\u00e7\u00e3o FHC \u2013 Photo: Vinicius Doti<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

“The complexity of Brazilian society \u2013 marked by regional diversities, social pluralism and inequality \u2013 requires a networked democracy, in which the STF does not decide alone, but is anchored in a network of oversight and deliberative institutions, which includes bodies such as the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Courts of Auditors, the Office of the Comptroller General, the National Council of Justice, and even certain regulatory agencies,” he continued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“This vision of institutional interdependence is more faithful to the spirit of the 1988 Constitution, which sought to pluralize power and socialize the defense of the rule of law, and offers an antidote to the excessive personalization of constitutional politics in 11 ministers. In short, the path to a mature democracy lies less in the concentration of power in the STF and more in the strengthening of an institutional ecology, where multiple bodies, parties, and civil society itself share the responsibility of sustaining the democratic pact,” said Fachin, invited to participate in the lecture series “Brazil in the view of public leaders,” initiated by the Funda\u00e7\u00e3o FHC in February 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Winds blowing from the North, however strong they may be, will not haunt us.”<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

At the end of the event, Fachin criticized US President Donald Trump’s decision to apply the Magnitsky Act against Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes for his role in the proceedings involving former President Jair Bolsonaro and others accused of attempting a coup:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cPunishing a judge for decisions he has made is a terrible example of undue intervention. Even more so when it comes from a foreign country in relation to another sovereign country. Therefore, I do not think it is a reasonable course of action. On the contrary, it is undue interference, which acts as a kind of threat. But, as I said, we are from a generation that has already lived under threat, and we will not be frightened by these winds blowing from the North, no matter how strong they may be. I believe that we have accumulated experience in defending democracy and the democratic rule of law and, especially, judicial independence and autonomy. One may agree or disagree with the decisions of a particular judge. When one disagrees, one can appeal or criticize it publicly . This is characteristic of democracy. But to punish in this way, or even to punish internally, a judge for a decision made because of the political or ideological effects of a decision, is absolutely wrong. It is an offense to the most basic principles of judicial independence and autonomy. I believe that this new pandemic, the pandemic of global populist authoritarianism, may victimize institutions and courts in other countries. And I hope that everyone, including together, will know how to resist these circumstances.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n