Video transcript
Pronunciamento
24 statements · 1 politicians · December 3, 2025
Statements by Sérgio Moro. 24 transcribed statements, with topic and stance on the ones the analysis classified.
Speakers
Click any statement beside the video to jump straight to the moment it was said.
Transcript
24 statementsFull transcript of the video. Statements the analysis classified carry topic and stance.
Mr. President, Senators and Senatoresses, first I congratulate Your Excellency, Senator Davi, for his institutional courage.
There is a basic principle in the Republic that no one is above the law.
The idea is that we want a government of laws, not a government of men.
Unfortunately, this single-judge decision that was made – and, of course, we respect the STF (Supreme Federal Tribunal) – practically immunizes the STF (Supreme Federal Tribunal) from any and all accountability, because any potential criminal investigation must be initiated by the Prosecutor General of the Republic and conducted by the STF (Supreme Federal Tribunal) itself.
And now political responsibility – if this single-judge decision prevails, which I imagine will not happen – will also have to follow the same path.
Now, neither the Senators, nor the Deputies, nor the President of the Republic, who is elected by tens of millions of Brazilians, have legal protection of that level.
We must, unfortunately, repudiate this decision.
I take the liberty here of recalling a passage from our first Constitution, still the Imperial Constitution, which stated in article 99 that the person of the emperor is inviolable and sacred.
He was not subject to any responsibility. That was long ago overcome by the first republican Constitution and no one can claim to receive treatment equivalent to what was provided for the emperor in the Imperial Constitution.
We want 11 Justices of the STF (Supreme Federal Tribunal), not 11 emperors of Brazil.
In that vein, I hope that this decision is not confirmed by the Plenary of the STF (Supreme Federal Tribunal) – and there is, yes, the possibility of a retreat here – or, if it is confirmed, that we can reestablish the balance, either by law or by amending the Constitution.
What we cannot admit is that a law that had been in force since 1950, whose constitutionality had never been questioned in this respect, be suddenly, abruptly altered by a precautionary measure, as if there were an urgent matter, by a judicial decision of creativity but devoid of express or even implicit support in our constitutional text.
We all must submit to the law.
And if recently we saw, in the so-called PEC of prerogatives, which came to this Chamber and was ultimately rejected, and one of the reasons was this Chamber's disagreement with the text, but likewise the public's repudiation of what was called 'shielding' in relation to Parliamentarians, even more so now, because it deprives the citizen — every Brazilian citizen — of the right to complain, and it deprives the National Congress of impeachment, a political measure, a measure of political accountability against a Justice of the STF (Supreme Federal Tribunal).
It is certain that here, I make it clear, one cannot vulgarize or trivialize requests for impeachment against any authority, whether the President or a judicial authority.
But let us recognize here that our tradition is not full of examples of impeachments approved against judicial authorities, neither ours nor in comparative law.
In the United States there was only one case, that of Justice Chase, in the early 19th century, still at the beginning of the Supreme Court's functioning, when the impeachment was approved by the Chamber of Deputies but was later judged unfounded by the Senate; in other words, there is no prodigality or multiplication of impeachments accepted by this House.
Therefore, it is even less justifiable to attempt to establish any kind of shielding.
I repeat, Mr. President, that we need to have back 11 Justices of the STF (Supreme Federal Tribunal) and not 11 emperors of Brazil, which is what this single-judge decision establishes.
They cannot arrogate to themselves the same status, the same normative treatment that was given to the Brazilian Emperor during the Monarchy.
It is no longer acceptable to assert that any authority is not subject to any responsibility, which is what it means in practice.
And we also need to restore the dignity of the law, the dignity of Parliament.
A Senator and a Deputy are not better than a Justice of the STF (Supreme Federal Tribunal), but we have a virtue they do not: we are subject to periodic elections, and the ordinary citizen, at the ballot box, can remove us from office.
The same does not happen with the Justices of the STF (Supreme Federal Tribunal). There is no longer room for emperors in Brazil!
AI classification from the transcript of a public video. See the Methodology