One of the most expensive
values of the Democratic Rule of Law is that of impartiality of the judges. Of
the State Judge, presented from the professorship, always and when there is
handle, always and when there are motives for the manifestation of the power to
tell the law.
The principle of
impartiality of the jurisdiction is intrinsically related to the values that
inform the Brazilian procedural planning. As principle is what has to serve as
a criterion to the exact comprehension and logical intelligence and rationality
of the normative system, as stipulated by Professor Celso Antônio Bandeira de
Mello.
When the CNJ’s inspector
goes out in public soiling the dignity of judges, when, without putting
themselves in an equitable position between the conflicted values, without even
having jurisdictional power, we have its impartiality completely compromised,
on which its search for the truth, is not a search: is what we know as “witch
hunting”; inquisition, public exposure of the honorability of the “inspected”.
Now, if minimally, for
coherence sake, no professorship, when fulfilling its duties on justice, can
defend personal interests in its action. In the case, it has to be stated that
the CNJ’s inspector can no longer develop its work impartially. Its public and
media notoriety, dulling its work, stain its decisions, making all its
activities, a mere appanage of a vanity measure, which only ignite the public
imagination, discrediting the work of one of the powers of the State.
The CNJ, which is born with
a congenital disease, which ever, supervising the justice provider organ, when
such should be observed by the own Power, in the exercise of its sovereignty.
It interests who such discredit? To whom it interests that the judiciary stops
judging and worries with its own productions and bowels?
The media has maintained
repeatedly a stupid unanimity, as Nelson Rodriges would say on the unceasing on
the CNJ, on an uncritical way. The reporters in the vain expectation of gaining
notoriety on the pages of the big newspapers, do not fail on opening space for
a judge who, as we understand, has completely lost her impartiality, and seems
to believe on being the new Torquemada of the XXI century. The vigilante,
common figure which insist on imposing itself on Brazil, as the correct form of
correcting excesses and irregularities.
On the vigilante’s thought
we have a premise: “The Law, now the Law, is incapable of solving problems
because It was made by the elites for the elites”, as a consequence, has not to
keep silent and respect for its public function, or for the dignity of one of
the most important courts in the country.
We have to be active, and
then, understand that an inspector acts with intense judicial activism, when
occupies a mere administrative position which, in principle, should investigate
if the there are or not irregularities on the action of the professorships.
Believing, naively, on the
neutrality of the media exposure and the heated and explosives discussions on
the inspection of the CNJ is now knowing, or making deaf of it, to the truth
that all acts are political, that its own function is politics.
The exposition that São
Paulo’s judges are receiving is unworthy of the Brazilian juridical tradition,
a disservice to the population, a negation of impartiality, of the dignity of
justice.
An inspector is, before
all, a silent worker that seeks the truth. He is the same, the impartial, who
seeks to bring back the tainted dignity by venal actions, by whose actions may
bring discredit to the Power which judge’s serve. He is not an anchor of an
auditory show, does not speak for the cameras, does not seek notoriety in easy
and done sentences, does not disclose its nature, the time and the depth of his
works, because they were not made for notoriety; they are works that seek the
preservation and rescue of the dignity of the judiciary.
As Márcio Puggina teaches: “No political scientist, with a
minimum of seriousness, would dare say that the members of the
judiciary are apolitical. This would sound as absurd
as to assert that religious are sexless by scientists, just for
the imposed the duty of chastity.”
As such, knowing that
the judiciary is not apolitical, that the inspector of the CNJ, when exposing
the professorship, seeks the construction of a media and political space, of
personal belief, ask itself: what happened with Brazilian
newspapers, that made them handle palms on an auditory show, stared by who
should be, by principle and obligation, the most discrete of all authorities?
The attack to the
Democratic Rule of Law begins with good intentions and always ends the same
way: with the leap from the boots of those who, by not having pens supported by
the law, have weapons to impose its will. Who has lived, has seen! Who will
live, will see!
