Video transcript
Pronunciamento
46 statements · 1 politicians · September 10, 2025
Statements by Sérgio Moro. 46 transcribed statements, with topic and stance on the ones the analysis classified. Topics: Judiciary, Criminal Justice, Legislative Branch.
Speakers
Click any statement beside the video to jump straight to the moment it was said.
Transcript
46 statementsFull transcript of the video. Statements the analysis classified carry topic and stance.
Thank you. Senators, Madam Senators, Acting President, Senator Eduardo Girão, whom I greet, Senator Esperidião Amin, the trial at the STF (Supreme Federal Tribunal) ends up attracting everyone's attention.
- Against
About: assign jurisdiction to the STF to try ex-Presidents
And Minister Luiz Fux, whom I particularly admire as a judge, today emphasized in his vote, still in progress, what, in my view, is the original sin of this whole process: the question of the jurisdiction of the STF (Supreme Federal Tribunal).
- Against
About: assign jurisdiction to the STF to try ex-Presidents
I have said, and with respect to the STF (Supreme Federal Tribunal), that it was a big mistake for it to assume that jurisdiction to try this case and likewise that of the January 8 protesters, and the reason is very simple.
- Against
About: assign jurisdiction to the STF to try ex-Presidents
In the case in question, Bolsonaro is a former President, he is no longer President, so the basis for special jurisdiction by virtue of office no longer applies.
- Neutral
About: extend foro por prerrogativa de função beyond time in office (Súmula 394)
And let us make clear that the STF (Supreme Federal Tribunal) had a jurisprudence embodied in Súmula 394.
- Neutral
About: extend foro por prerrogativa de função beyond time in office (Súmula 394)
Súmula 394 extended the special jurisdiction by virtue of office beyond the period in which the office was held.
- Neutral
About: extend foro por prerrogativa de função beyond time in office (Súmula 394)
It said: 'If the crime is committed during the exercise of the function, the special jurisdiction by prerogative of office prevails, even if the inquiry or criminal action is initiated after the cessation of that exercise.'
- Neutral
About: revoke application of Súmula 394
However, Súmula 394 was revoked, in a point of order in Criminal Action 315, at the time still under Minister Moreira Alves.
That was in 1999, and the judgment was published in 2001.
- Neutral
About: do not extend judicial privilege (foro por prerrogativa de função) to former officeholders after leaving office
Since then — look, we're talking about 1999 — the STF understood that jurisdiction by prerogative of forum, prerogative of office, no longer extended to those who had ended their term or had left the office that attracted the special jurisdiction by virtue of office.
- Neutral
About: limit the scope of privileged jurisdiction
The STF, however, at the beginning of this year, in March 2025, in a case not related, it is true, to this Bolsonaro case or to that of the January 8 protesters, decided to alter that understanding.
- Against
About: limit the scope of privileged jurisdiction
It changed a consolidated jurisprudence of more than 20 years, which, at the moment, came to seem like an ad hoc change, that is: 'We do not have jurisdiction to try and prosecute former President Jair Bolsonaro because of our jurisprudence that dates from 1999, but we will change it now,' and that made it possible to argue now, in this criminal case pending before the STF, that they had such jurisdiction.
That does not change the fact that Alexandre Ramagem, Federal Deputy, is listed as a defendant in the criminal case.
- Against
About: assign jurisdiction to the STF to try individuals for acts committed before their term
Why? Because, although he is today a Federal Deputy, the facts imputed to him, the actions imputed to him, are prior to the exercise of his mandate.
- Against
About: assign jurisdiction to the STF to investigate and try individuals after leaving office
So, from any perspective, there is no original jurisdiction of the STF (Supreme Federal Tribunal) here, either for investigation or for the trial of the criminal case.
- For
About: adjudicate at the appropriate instance (first instance when applicable)
And here Minister Fux was courageous in pointing out this preliminary issue right at the start: 'It is not for the STF (Supreme Federal Tribunal) to judge this case.'
- Against
About: assign jurisdiction to the STF to try ex-Presidents
I had already said this before, several jurists had said it before, former Minister Marco Aurélio Mello had highlighted this fact of the lack of jurisdiction of the STF (Supreme Federal Tribunal).
- Against
About: limit the scope of privileged jurisdiction
And when one forces, argumentatively, a change in jurisprudence of more than 20 years to bring about or to maintain that jurisdiction with regard to former President Jair Bolsonaro in this criminal case, in this investigation, it is evident that it ends up generating a discomfort; it ends up seeming that there was, let's say, a forcing of the argument so that this case would remain in the STF (Supreme Federal Tribunal).
- For
About: adjudicate at the appropriate instance (first instance when applicable)
And there is one more reason why this case and also the January 8 protesters should not have stayed in that Court: the STF (Supreme Federal Tribunal) feels attacked.
It was, in fact, invaded by those protesters.
- For
About: refer cases against January 8 protesters to first-instance courts
So, it is a court that feels assaulted, and a court that feels assaulted is not the best forum to have the necessary serenity to judge those protesters or even now the case of former President Bolsonaro and the generals.
It is natural that, having been attacked, the court reacts in a way that seeks to preserve its dignity, its sovereignty, but with a certain excess toward its aggressors.
- For
About: review and reduce sentences applied to those convicted for the January 8 acts
In my view, it is this factor that explains the exacerbation of those sentences imposed on the protesters of 17 years, 18 years, 14 years, because one smeared a statue with lipstick, because another sat in one of the Ministers' chairs.
I am not saying that those acts were correct.
- For
About: review and reduce sentences applied to those convicted for the January 8 acts
No, they were reprehensible, they were wrong and must pay for their mistakes, but not in the absolute disproportion we are seeing.
- For
About: adjudicate at the appropriate instance (first instance when applicable)
It would be more appropriate that these cases be referred to the first instance, as was the case of former President Lula.
Under the consolidated jurisprudence of more than 20 years, since 1999, Lula was no longer serving as President.
- Neutral
About: adjudicate at the appropriate instance (first instance when applicable)
For that reason, he was tried in the first instance, and was able to appeal to the second instance, in which he was likewise convicted, and was able to appeal to the third instance, the STJ (Superior Court of Justice), in which he was also convicted, until that political turnaround came and nullities were found there — in my view, nonexistent — which led to, let's say, a change in the former President's situation, who was released and later was even able to run for the Presidency of the Republic, without ever having been declared, by the way, innocent.
- Against
About: assign jurisdiction to the STF to try ex-Presidents
So, the original sin of this case, in the STF (Supreme Federal Tribunal), concerns jurisdiction, as was very well put in Minister Luiz Fux's vote today.
- Against
About: limit the scope of privileged jurisdiction
And I do not see how the STF can justify that a jurisprudence of more than 20 years, of 25 years, be abruptly altered to justify the trial of this case before the STF (Supreme Federal Tribunal).
- For
About: adjudicate at the appropriate instance (first instance when applicable)
It would do the STF (Supreme Federal Tribunal) well to remit this case to the first instance.
Thus it would show: 'Look, we do not have a specific interest in this cause.'
- For
About: adjudicate at the appropriate instance (first instance when applicable)
'We have a specific interest in the maintenance of the law', and the STF itself would still have appellate competence; it could judge this case in the future, in any eventual appeal that reached its hands.
- Against
About: assign jurisdiction to the STF to try ex-Presidents
But the STF did not have, at least since 1999, competence to prosecute and try a former President of the Republic.
- Against
About: assign jurisdiction to the STF to try ex-Presidents
And it is very difficult for us to accept that, suddenly, it recovered that competence this year in order to be able to judge former President Bolsonaro.
- For
About: maintain the STF's 1999 understanding that limited foro por prerrogativa de função
Let's hope that this vote is the beginning of putting things back in their place.
If the STF proceeds to the merits and evaluates that merit, I saw in Minister Flávio Dino's vote yesterday — I read commentary, because I could not watch it in full — his reference to the possibility of recognizing minor participation for some of the accused, among them some military officers who appear on the defendant's side.
- For
About: review and reduce sentences applied to those convicted for the January 8 acts
And I would say the following: if they are to be convicted and, at the same time, minor participation is recognized, then let that understanding be extended, whether in the panel (Turma) or eventually in the Plenary, in a review, to those January 8 protesters.
- For
About: review and reduce sentences applied to those convicted for the January 8 acts
Because, if we think about it, if this prosecution thesis that there was an attempted coup on January 8 prevails — with which I disagree — but if that thesis prevails and there is to be conviction of the generals, recognizing minor participation and therefore reducing the sentence, as our Penal Code allows, then that benefit should also be extended to those protesters.
- For
About: review and reduce sentences applied to those convicted for the January 8 acts
If the Generals had minor participation, those January 8 protesters had much less importance; in the attempted coup version, regarding which I have already said I disagree, they would at most have been a mass of maneuver, a pawn of minor importance, much inferior to that of any other participant in that criminal scheme narrated by the Office of the Attorney General (Procuradoria-Geral da República).
AI classification from the transcript of a public video. See the Methodology