RECORDNEWS — broadcast
20260915 190000 UTC
530 transcript segments
Google Cloud Speech-to-Text API (Chirp) + Gemini 2.5 Flash Non-Thinking
Data courtesy of The GDELT Project (https://www.gdeltproject.org/), from the Internet Archive TV News Archive.
Machine transcription. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a verbatim quotation record.

[00:00:00] to undo the connection, the continence that determines
[00:00:03] unity of process and
[00:00:06] plenary by 10 to judgment, legal uncertainty, lack of
[00:00:10] predictability, therefore, in my view, a
[00:00:14] sum of very serious
[00:00:16] defects,
[00:00:19] if it weren't for the literal
[00:00:21] interpretation of the regulation of the
[00:00:25] law, we would have a much more
[00:00:27] acute problem. Record News continues
[00:00:31] following the live broadcast of the extraordinary
[00:00:34] session of the Federal
[00:00:43] later in relation to
[00:00:45] the facts,
[00:01:08] attribution
[00:01:13] of rapporteurships and changes of rapporteurships
[00:01:17] at the discretion of an individual, we
[00:01:20] are tearing up all the political philosophy
[00:01:23] from Aristotle to the
[00:01:27] contemporary proceduralists.
[00:01:30] all the way from the basic distinction of government of
[00:01:33] laws and government of
[00:01:35] men.
[00:01:40] the principle of the natural judge
[00:01:43] applies to an inquiry, of course it
[00:01:46] does, and see that
[00:01:50] these are reflections that should
[00:01:53] concern us all, because they transcend this
[00:01:57] judgment.
[00:02:00] Minister Dino, I just wanted to make an observation, even for a
[00:02:04] matter of impartiality, we don't have an
[00:02:07] inquiry, no one is, we don't have an
[00:02:10] inquiry, we are facing an inquiry, there is no inquiry
[00:02:14] Your Excellency, by yet, what we have
[00:02:17] is an investigation, that's not an inquiry, we are here, the
[00:02:20] object today is to deliberate whether there will be an inquiry, Minister
[00:02:24] Alexandre Morais is not yet
[00:02:28] appearing as a subject of an inquiry.
[00:02:31] "Minister Fux, if it were true, with all due respect to your
[00:02:34] excellency's statement, we would have to annul everything that has happened so far,
[00:02:38] because today there was evidentiary instruction, your
[00:02:41] excellency says: there is nothing, your excellency just said, it's a moment when
[00:02:45] we are, no, no, Minister Fux,
[00:02:48] your excellency just said that we have nothing, but your
[00:02:52] excellency wants to apply the rules of the inquiry, of course, because
[00:02:56] it's not under inquiry, something must exist, otherwise we wouldn't be here."
[00:03:01] So if there is nothing, if
[00:03:04] there is a procedural nothing or a legal nothing,
[00:03:07] not legalism, not what has been done so
[00:03:11] far is totally null.
[00:03:13] I
[00:03:15] don't agree with your perception respectfully, but
[00:03:19] it's Aristotle, it's syllogism, it's premise,
[00:03:22] premise, so and since we need to have
[00:03:25] records, right? to deliberate, we don't have criminal
[00:03:29] action. "We had a petition,
[00:03:33] in this petition, under the primitive rapporteurship of
[00:03:36] Minister André, acts of
[00:03:40] procedural instruction occurred,
[00:03:42] including by means of requesting
[00:03:46] elements and
[00:03:49] conviction, because if not we wouldn't
[00:03:53] be here, let's imagine, Minister Fux, two scenarios,
[00:03:57] scenario one, Minister André. legitimate
[00:04:01] actor by distribution of the
[00:04:04] master case, finds there an
[00:04:08] allusion, uh, let's imagine the carioca
[00:04:11] minister who supports Fluminense,
[00:04:15] right, which is your excellency's case,
[00:04:17] measure one, federal police identify who is the
[00:04:21] carioca minister who supports Fluminense, this is
[00:04:24] an act of instruction, this is an act of
[00:04:27] instruction. from what I understood, measure
[00:04:31] B, measure B,
[00:04:34] President Faquim, I found
[00:04:37] here an allusion to a carioca minister who supports Fluminense,
[00:04:41] the matter is with your excellency,
[00:04:44] so, uh, as we
[00:04:46] had a
[00:04:50] procedural inadequacy, I'll call it that, we
[00:04:54] ran into a situation, I repeat, where there is no
[00:04:57] procedurality, there is no ritual. there are personal
[00:05:01] choices with the aggravating factor that I mentioned a
[00:05:05] moment ago, Minister Carmen, if choosing only Minister
[00:05:09] Alexandre's ritual was already serious.
[00:05:12] "The problem is that it's not just Minister Alexandre who is in the same
[00:05:16] situation, Minister André, for example, is and so many others,
[00:05:20] so many others, your excellency and others, so how
[00:05:23] will it be, we will choose a ritual for each
[00:05:26] one, I in other words, as I will arrive
[00:05:30] there soon, Minister Fux, as rapporteur, I will
[00:05:34] arrive there soon, how will we be able to choose the ritual
[00:05:37] and case by
[00:05:41] case for... the cases, those that have already arisen and those that will arise,
[00:05:45] I, as a member of this court, think that
[00:05:48] for the technical authority
[00:05:52] of the court it is not good, and I think that this
[00:05:55] will lead, Mr. President, to an irreparable
[00:05:57] dissolution,
[00:05:59] because it will be a crisis
[00:06:02] every week, priced,
[00:06:06] because I imagine that at this
[00:06:08] point no one imagines, no one... that we are only going
[00:06:11] to deliberate about Minister Alexandre, right, so
[00:06:14] we'll have to deliberate about all the others,
[00:06:18] then for each one that comes,
[00:06:21] we'll choose a ritual, I'll give you
[00:06:25] an example, soon, if the matter of
[00:06:28] order is overcome, which I continue here in my
[00:06:32] drive, praying that it will be
[00:06:35] accepted, let's imagine that the matter of order is
[00:06:38] rejected, we will proceed to the vote.
[00:06:42] The question that will arise immediately: Does Minister
[00:06:46] André vote?
[00:06:48] Does Minister Alexandre vote? Your Excellency, allow me, an
[00:06:51] observation, Your Excellency does not know, of course I allow it, no Minister, not
[00:06:55] here there is a peculiar fact,
[00:06:59] there was a conflict of
[00:07:02] decisions, there was a conflict of decisions
[00:07:05] between members of the same court, without
[00:07:08] hierarchy in relation to each other, who dissipates this?
[00:07:13] No, no, Minister, and
[00:07:15] this case, I already debated it this morning and agreed, we are no longer
[00:07:19] dealing with it, what your excellency said, I said
[00:07:23] this morning, is that in the case of the Director-General of the Federal
[00:07:26] Police, yes, there was no other place to
[00:07:30] resolve it, also because I am from the first panel and Minister André is from the
[00:07:34] second, I did not discuss this, I said, I went to the cabinet, I told
[00:07:37] Minister Faquim, Minister, I'm
[00:07:41] good, there is a decision removing the Director-General of the
[00:07:43] PF, I consider that this hinders two operations that
[00:07:47] I have already granted, I granted the operations
[00:07:51] before the removal of Dr. Andrei, Dark
[00:07:55] Horse and Cezinha Madureira,
[00:07:59] before the removal, and as Minister Gilmar
[00:08:02] said, if
[00:08:04] we take an armed corporation
[00:08:08] and remove its leadership,
[00:08:11] it's an act. quite reckless, I
[00:08:14] would say, and as at that moment this meant
[00:08:17] operationally dismantling the
[00:08:20] federal police, I
[00:08:23] considered that just as Minister André has
[00:08:27] and indeed has, and Your Excellency has, I also
[00:08:31] have the general power of caution over my
[00:08:34] processes, and it was in the name of the effectiveness of two
[00:08:38] of my decisions, one Dark Horse,
[00:08:42] the other... Cezinha Amadureira
[00:08:43] and
[00:08:46] the facts showed that I was right, because
[00:08:49] in the case of Congressman Cezinha Amadoreira there was
[00:08:53] a delay of 5 days in fulfilling the measure
[00:08:57] exactly due to operational difficulties, but that's
[00:09:00] superseded and with an advantage
[00:09:04] for Minister Faquim, there were
[00:09:07] records, there was a request for suspension of
[00:09:10] an injunction, he just... said this
[00:09:13] this morning I repeat, he just expanded the preliminary
[00:09:16] suspension, perhaps excessively, but it's not my business,
[00:09:19] because he suspended even an administrative
[00:09:22] procedure in the PGR,
[00:09:25] I said this this morning, I repeat and will repeat for the rest of my
[00:09:28] life, but at least there were
[00:09:31] records, right, we are not talking about conflicting
[00:09:34] decisions, we are talking about the following hypothesis, Minister
[00:09:38] André Mendonça,
[00:09:41] he sends the president a request
[00:09:44] for or
[00:09:47] authorization for the investigation of Minister
[00:09:51] Alexandre, immediately Minister
[00:09:54] Alexandre sends to the
[00:09:58] president, because there was a lie, president,
[00:10:01] that a lie, I am against
[00:10:04] lies, I am against it, but it was not from anyone in the court,
[00:10:07] that Minister Alexandre had used the
[00:10:11] inquiry.
[00:10:25] another lie, it was this plenary, I was not
[00:10:29] here, it was this
[00:10:31] 1 that sanctioned the
[00:10:34] inquiry, so there is no arbitrary inquiry
[00:10:37] by Toffoli and Alexandre, no, it was voted
[00:10:41] here,
[00:10:44] when Minister Alexandre dispatches there in the
[00:10:46] inquiry, he sends it to the
[00:10:49] president,
[00:10:52] he didn't use it, he, he didn't, he... in the
[00:10:55] inquiry sending it to the president and we
[00:10:59] are now at this moment where we
[00:11:02] have a request from Minister André to
[00:11:05] investigate Minister Alexandre and we have
[00:11:08] a request for authorization to investigate a request from
[00:11:12] Minister Alexandre asking for authorization to investigate Minister
[00:11:15] André, soon today,
[00:11:18] tomorrow we will have requests from so many other
[00:11:22] colleagues in the same situation.
[00:11:26] What is the ritual? Will Minister André vote on the
[00:11:30] investigation request he himself made for Minister Alexandre? Your
[00:11:34] Excellency does not know the answer, neither do I, no, because it has not been raised yet, that's
[00:11:37] right, it has not been raised because it is not written, that's what I'm saying, there is no
[00:11:41] ritual, we are debating a point of order in
[00:11:44] relation to, oh Minister Fux, I am
[00:11:48] explaining the point of order, I am
[00:11:51] showing that the point of order is based
[00:11:55] on the fact that we do not have a pre-established ritual, a natural
[00:11:59] judge, uniform this here, exactly,
[00:12:02] there, I knew your Excellency would agree with me, as there has never
[00:12:06] been anything like this here, this
[00:12:08] embarrassing moment, that's what I'm saying,
[00:12:12] so continuing, Mr. President,
[00:12:15] I uh, went to research with those who know more than
[00:12:18] me, Lee, Rocksin, Luiz
[00:12:22] Greco, Rassimer. Francisco de Assis
[00:12:26] Toledo, and so on, there are many, an
[00:12:29] auxiliary judge from the cabinet helped me a lot,
[00:12:33] there's one here that I didn't read because it doesn't teach anything right, it's Raul
[00:12:37] Safaron, Nilo Batista, but I, I will only quote
[00:12:40] one, only one,
[00:12:43] uh, which also reassures Minister
[00:12:47] Fux's spirit with his just theoretical
[00:12:50] objection, natural judge in criminal procedure,
[00:12:54] uh, Gustavo.
[00:12:57] Natural judge in preliminary investigation, so if your
[00:13:00] excellency thinks there is no inquiry,
[00:13:04] but there is no doubt that we have at least a preliminary investigation, otherwise we wouldn't
[00:13:08] be here, the guarantee of a natural
[00:13:11] judge appears traditionally linked to
[00:13:14] criminal procedure, or rather, the definition of the
[00:13:18] competent judge for criminal condemnatory
[00:13:20] procedure, it remains to be seen if this same guarantee
[00:13:24] should be applied to the judge who
[00:13:27] acts during the preliminary investigation
[00:13:30] phase,
[00:13:33] whether it is carried out through a police
[00:13:36] inquiry or by other means,
[00:13:39] there, it asks, other
[00:13:42] means, he follows obviously,
[00:13:45] not differently from other times, I believe that it is not
[00:13:49] appropriate for me to read here
[00:13:51] for hours and hours only the most important
[00:13:56] but it is necessary to substantiate why
[00:13:59] uh, I want to record my
[00:14:02] legal conviction in relation to the point of
[00:14:05] order. The judge who acts during the preliminary
[00:14:08] investigation is a judge like any other judge
[00:14:12] has the same prerogatives, equal guarantees, is subject
[00:14:16] to identical constitutional prohibitions and legal
[00:14:18] impediments.
[00:14:21] Also in the inquiry, following the reading, or what?
[00:14:25] Any other form of preliminary investigation, there is the right to a
[00:14:28] natural judge and consequently that jurisdictional
[00:14:32] acts eventually practiced are orders from a competent
[00:14:35] judge. Now, who
[00:14:38] establishes the competent judge is
[00:14:40] someone's individual will, of course
[00:14:43] not. Who establishes it are the norms and
[00:14:47] in this case, how is a competent
[00:14:50] judge determined in a court of equals? By means of
[00:14:55] distribution
[00:14:58] is what is in the Code of Civil Procedure, in the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the internal
[00:15:01] regulations, because
[00:15:05] I repeat, eh, today it may be an
[00:15:07] qualified, honest,
[00:15:11] upright president like Minister Faquim and all the
[00:15:14] others who will follow, but in another court or even
[00:15:18] here, tomorrow it may not be, and that is why
[00:15:21] the guarantee of the natural judge cannot be...
[00:15:25] impeached.
[00:15:27] The president, uh, with good reason,
[00:15:31] I understand your
[00:15:33] indignation uh, about the term.
[00:15:37] Use of the word "vocatória" is that I didn't find
[00:15:41] another, perhaps we can
[00:15:45] create one, but the fact is that
[00:15:49] eh, if there is a rapporteur,
[00:15:52] as there was, a
[00:15:54] rapporteur, what is the procedural
[00:15:58] mechanism? One, this rapporteur
[00:16:00] resigns,
[00:16:03] it didn't happen, it happened with Minister Toffle.
[00:16:08] Two, an impediment or suspension of this
[00:16:11] rapporteur or suspension of this rapporteur is argued and
[00:16:15] accepted, that also didn't happen,
[00:16:17] in your excellency's decision, it is clear that your excellency, even due to your
[00:16:21] background, did not use the word
[00:16:24] "vocatória", but I reiterate, I did not
[00:16:28] find another name for an act
[00:16:31] of a president who says: the competence is mine,
[00:16:34] this is a vocation that normally... is only
[00:16:38] possible, normally,
[00:16:41] it is when there is jurisdictional
[00:16:43] hierarchy, we can invoke a process from a
[00:16:47] lower hierarchy
[00:16:49] court,
[00:16:52] or even, Mr. President, when there is a request for a preliminary
[00:16:55] injunction, as mentioned here by the eminent dean
[00:16:58] Gilmar, he was president of this court, Minister
[00:17:02] Luiz Fux,
[00:17:05] there was the granting of two two. very
[00:17:09] discussed habeas corpus, not by him, by Minister Marco
[00:17:12] Aurélio. One habeas corpus was related to
[00:17:16] Minister, to the fugitive Salvatore
[00:17:20] Catiola, it was a single-judge
[00:17:24] decision, Mr. Salvatore
[00:17:27] Catiola, of whom I make no value
[00:17:29] judgment, he was a fugitive for 7
[00:17:32] years,
[00:17:34] he ended up being extradited, anyway, it doesn't matter much.
[00:17:39] In this same segment,
[00:17:42] in the wake of this precedent, there was the granting in this
[00:17:46] court of the habeas corpus by Minister Marco Aurélio, if I'm not mistaken,
[00:17:50] a single-judge decision, of a drug trafficker named André do
[00:17:53] Rap, if I mispronounce the name, please
[00:17:57] forgive me, a suspension was filed for
[00:18:00] Your Excellency, who was the president of the court, this and your
[00:18:03] excellency, then yes, with records, with... and
[00:18:07] we continue to follow the STF session here on Link News,
[00:18:11] I now call Renato Diniz and Gustavo Toledo to
[00:18:15] detail more of this historic day at the STF, good
[00:18:18] afternoon, good afternoon Daísa, a good afternoon to Renato, good
[00:18:21] afternoon Gustavo, good afternoon Daísa, good afternoon to you who follow us on this historic
[00:18:25] day of session at the Federal Supreme Court
[00:18:28] and to analyze this session and
[00:18:31] specifically analyze the speeches of Minister Flávio Dino, we call
[00:18:35] lawyer Max Telesc, an expert in superior courts and criminal
[00:18:39] law, for us to understand a little about this vote of
[00:18:42] the minister. Uh Max, I would like to start precisely with this phase
[00:18:46] of his insistence on talking about ritual and citing,
[00:18:49] look, there are two judges here who are
[00:18:52] going through a process, he even alludes to inquiry,
[00:18:55] investigation, there's a clash there with Minister Fux, about which
[00:18:59] ritual we will follow, hours, uh, explain this to us, what
[00:19:03] is he trying to achieve by pressing so hard on the point that there is no ritual
[00:19:07] to define what they want
[00:19:16] he, he even uses Minister Flávio Dino, he
[00:19:20] is of a brilliance in rhetoric in
[00:19:24] speech. Minister Dino is, in a
[00:19:27] always very brilliant way he constructs his arguments, it's not by chance that he is
[00:19:31] a minister of the Federal Supreme Court. What he is saying is
[00:19:34] that, uh, there could
[00:19:37] be a conflict of
[00:19:41] decisions, if by any chance
[00:19:45] later, Minister André Mendonça
[00:19:48] is judged by the Federal Supreme
[00:19:51] Court, suspected to be the rapporteur,
[00:19:55] how can today
[00:19:59] uh he not, he not, how can this judgment not go
[00:20:02] together, both from
[00:20:05] Moraes against Mendonça and...
[00:20:09] to use a simpler expression for people to understand, one is an
[00:20:13] argument of suspicion made by Minister Moraes, the other
[00:20:17] is uh the possibility of opening an inquiry, an
[00:20:21] investigation against Minister Moraes, uh, so
[00:20:24] what Minister Dino is arguing, in a very
[00:20:28] technical way, with great rhetoric, is that there could
[00:20:31] be this uh this
[00:20:34] conflict of decisions, and he uses his own... decision of Minister
[00:20:38] Flávio Dino, which speaks of connection and
[00:20:41] continence, which are terms uh of civil procedure, criminal
[00:20:45] procedure, general theory of procedure that say that
[00:20:48] there exist objects that are that
[00:20:51] encompass each other, uh, it's a very technical language, but
[00:20:55] it's as if he were judging something that is part
[00:20:58] of uh the same whole, so he
[00:21:02] takes the argument of Minister uh
[00:21:05] Faquim himself and says that Minister Faquim
[00:21:08] was contradictory because with great elegance, but he says that Minister
[00:21:12] Faquim was contradictory because if he wanted to unite in order
[00:21:16] not to bring a decision that would be
[00:21:19] conflicting. If he wanted to unite, not
[00:21:23] if he made the decision pulling the process to his presidency, uh
[00:21:27] saying as a basis that there would be the possibility of a
[00:21:31] contradictory decision, how then not to judge the two at the same
[00:21:34] time? The truth is that uh there is no
[00:21:38] pre-defined ritual, there are for the judgment
[00:21:41] of a minister of the Federal Supreme Court, so they
[00:21:45] are uh in fact constructing the ritual, there is
[00:21:48] a part of this legal
[00:21:52] order that is in the internal rules of the Supreme Court, the other part in the organic
[00:21:56] law of the judiciary, they today uh are going
[00:21:59] through this cruel stage, so to speak, of constructing this
[00:22:03] ritual, that is why Minister Flávio Dino raised this point of
[00:22:06] order, now and in fact the
[00:22:10] rapporteur is Minister Faquim, that is what I have
[00:22:13] sustained here and always told our viewers, Minister
[00:22:17] Faquim, as president, he both...
[00:22:20] is the natural judge to judge the argument of
[00:22:24] suspicion, it is provided for in the internal rules of the Supreme Court, it is the
[00:22:27] president minister who is
[00:22:30] the rapporteur of an argument of suspension, suspension, that
[00:22:34] is, what was raised against Minister Mendonça, and he
[00:22:37] as president of the court, as uh he made this
[00:22:41] argument in his vote, when he resolved the point of order, as
[00:22:45] president of the court, as representative of the plenary,
[00:22:49] he is the rapporteur. By nature, of
[00:22:52] a process, eventually of the opening of an investigation of
[00:22:55] a criminal process, right, a criminal
[00:22:59] investigation against a Supreme minister, he would also be the
[00:23:01] rapporteur, so there is no such contradiction, with all due respect,
[00:23:04] obviously to the very well-founded
[00:23:08] rhetoric of Minister Flávio Dino.
[00:23:11] The
[00:23:13] session, the first part of the session ended with Minister Gilmar Mendes
[00:23:17] making uh...
[00:23:50] discussion about what was presented by Minister Gilmar Mendes extend throughout
[00:23:53] this afternoon, no, we don't start to see a decision
[00:23:57] on whether or not to investigate Minister Alexandre de
[00:24:00] Moraes, certainly, today they will not finish
[00:24:03] judging, they may even finish judging this
[00:24:07] specific point of order and
[00:24:10] it needs to be overcome, it needs to be, uh,
[00:24:14] overcome, there will still probably be, Minister
[00:24:17] Flávio Dino himself already said this. He anticipated this in his
[00:24:21] vote, that there could be a questioning, if Minister
[00:24:24] Mendonça can vote, if Minister Alexandre de Moraes
[00:24:28] can vote, so see that it is complex
[00:24:31] and probably, I wouldn't say probably, certainly,
[00:24:34] maybe not even this discussion will end today,
[00:24:38] so uh the opening itself of the
[00:24:42] investigative process, of an
[00:24:46] eventual inquiry against the acts, right?
[00:24:50] uh that Minister Moraes might have
[00:24:54] practiced, uh, that will be further down the road,
[00:24:57] today it will certainly not be voted on. Dr. Max,
[00:25:01] thank you for your help in understanding a little of Minister
[00:25:04] Flávio Dino's speech, Dr. Maxegue here with
[00:25:07] us, helping us to move from
[00:25:10] legal jargon for you at home all of us to understand the ministers'
[00:25:14] speeches, now we return to follow Minister
[00:25:17] Flávio Dino's speech. Your
[00:25:20] Excellency: unity of process and judgment, unity of
[00:25:24] instruction, equal ritual, parity of
[00:25:27] arms, adversarial principle, broad defense,
[00:25:31] Fifth 54, Fifth
[00:25:34] 55, third article of the
[00:25:37] CPP, are civilizational guarantees that
[00:25:41] cannot be overridden
[00:25:45] by the criminal law of the author or by personal interests legitimate outside
[00:25:49] this court, but not within it, and
[00:25:52] therefore I consider that the referral contained
[00:25:55] in Minister Gilmar's point of order
[00:25:59] is the one that best preserves
[00:26:02] our role as providers of justice, of legal
[00:26:05] certainty, and these are the
[00:26:08] reasons why I formally
[00:26:12] adhere to the considerations on Minister
[00:26:15] Gilmar Mendes's point of order. How does Your Excellency Minister
[00:26:19] Cristiano Zanin vote? Mr. President, I greet Your
[00:26:22] Excellency, I greet Minister Camilúcia, your eminent peers,
[00:26:26] Mr. Attorney General of the Republic, lawyers, attorneys,
[00:26:29] all civil servants who accompany us, Mr.
[00:26:32] President, eh, in order not to be repetitive, I
[00:26:36] will I will move forward by asking
[00:26:40] to see, Your Excellency, that I am following the
[00:26:44] eminent Vinício Gilmar Mendes on the point of order raised,
[00:26:47] and I will just make some
[00:26:51] additional notes. As we have seen here
[00:26:55] throughout the debates, we have many
[00:26:58] doubts and perplexities here.
[00:27:01] Perhaps this point of order, its
[00:27:04] unfolding, can also allow them
[00:27:08] to be overcome,
[00:27:11] so that we have an
[00:27:14] analysis, I would say, within due process
[00:27:18] well emphasized. In reinforcement of
[00:27:21] what was said by Your Excellency, I
[00:27:24] recall that in a decision delivered by Your Excellency on
[00:27:27] September 12, 2026, it was
[00:27:31] the decision in which Your Excellency assumes the
[00:27:34] rapporteurship
[00:27:36] of the Pet
[00:27:40] that is being judged. Your Excellency finishes
[00:27:44] the decision by saying the following: I quote,
[00:27:47] "Considering the possibility that the
[00:27:51] result of the deliberation of PET
[00:27:53] 16662 may lead to the application of
[00:27:57] article 144,
[00:27:59] item 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I conclude
[00:28:03] on the basis of article 3 of the internal rules of the Supreme Court, the secretariat
[00:28:06] is to substitute the rapporteurship of PET
[00:28:09] 16 662 to the presidency of the
[00:28:13] Federal Supreme Court." Well,
[00:28:17] assuming the rapporteurship of this petition, expressly
[00:28:20] indicates the possibility of here the
[00:28:24] recognition of the suspicion of the
[00:28:27] eminent Minister André Mendonça. Now, if this possibility
[00:28:31] exists. hypothetically, it was
[00:28:34] put forward by Your Excellency, it seems
[00:28:37] to me that judging or analyzing here
[00:28:41] the beginning, an authorization for investigation without knowing if the
[00:28:45] suspicion will or will not be recognized,
[00:28:48] would be a logical inversion of procedural
[00:28:51] acts, especially since the recognition of
[00:28:55] suspicion, as we know, it
[00:28:58] may also have legal
[00:29:00] consequences.
[00:29:03] So, Mr. President, this is a crucial fact for
[00:29:06] me also to accept the point
[00:29:09] of order, it is not possible for us to deliberate
[00:29:13] on something that is, so to speak, still
[00:29:16] subject to verification,
[00:29:20] whether these acts were carried out legitimately or
[00:29:23] if, as Your Excellency stated, the
[00:29:27] Court will recognize and apply article
[00:29:29] 144 of the Civil
[00:29:33] Procedure Code or similar to the Criminal Procedure Code, I am not here
[00:29:37] anticipating a position, I am just
[00:29:39] here, based on what Your
[00:29:43] Excellency stated in the decision I just
[00:29:46] read, saying that we have to follow a logic
[00:29:49] of procedural acts, so this
[00:29:53] meeting that was here of
[00:29:56] procedures that was here raised in the point of
[00:29:59] order from Minister Flávio Dino and
[00:30:02] raised by Minister Gilmar Mendes, I think
[00:30:06] it can also allow
[00:30:10] this logical ,
[00:30:13] procedural sequence to be observed.
[00:30:16] Furthermore, Mr. President,
[00:30:19] I also include as
[00:30:23] a note in my vote that it was
[00:30:26] scheduled, regardless of the flaws,
[00:30:29] already argued by the eminent Minister Flávio Dino, the petition
[00:30:33] 16.0062,
[00:30:36] and I have here the full text of this PET,
[00:30:39] and the only requests that are contained in
[00:30:43] this PET were formulated by the
[00:30:47] Attorney General of the Republic in a statement
[00:30:50] presented by Your Excellency on
[00:30:53] September 1, 2026. And
[00:30:56] here, unless I am mistaken.