Former President Lula publishes open letter and says he respects the Supreme CourtLula seems to have been concerned about the statements of some ministers of the STF on wiretaps.
In an open letter published in the late evening of Thursday (17), hours after taking office as Minister of Governance, Lula repeated the same speech ever. In the first passage he says he believes in democratic institutions and harmony between the powers, then immediately says he expects the judiciary to be guaranteed the rule of law and respect for the rule of law.
And keep saying you're unhappy with the arbitrariness that has been submitted by state agents, among other words the MPF and PF.
Lula cites several times the STF ministers (Superior Federal Court), it seems that Lula was concerned about the statements made by some ministers after the telephone recordings made been made public by Judge Sergio Moro.
Read the full letter
open letter of former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva
I believe in democratic institutions, the independent and harmonious relationship between the branches of government, as established in the Constitution.
Members of the Judiciary hope, like all Brazilians, exemption and firmness to deliver justice and ensure compliance with the law and respect the rule of law unswerving.
I also believe in the impersonality of criteria, impartiality and balance that guide the judges in charge of this noble mission.
Believing in the institutions and people that embody, I had recourse to the Supreme Court when necessary, especially in recent weeks, to ensure rights and prerogatives that do not reach me exclusively, but every citizen and the whole society.
In the eight years I have held the presidency, by sovereign decision of the people - first and indispensable source of the exercise of power in democracies - had the opportunity to show appreciation and respect for the judiciary.
Not only did for words, but maintaining a daily relationship of respect, dialogue and cooperation; in practice, that is the fairest criterion of truth.
In my government, when the Supreme Court considered affronted by the suspicion that his then-president was the victim of wiretapping, I not get lost in considerations about the origin or the veracity of the evidence.
at that time, presented in full the answer seemed adequadapara preserve the dignity of the Supreme Court, and that the suspicions were freely investigadase was reached, like this, the truth of the facts.
Agi nÃ£oapenas that way because they had been exposed to intimacy and the opinions of interlocutors.
I acted out of respect for the judicial institution and because it seemed to me also the appropriate attitude toward the responsibilities that had been entrusted to me by the Brazilian people.
In recent weeks, as you all know, It is my intimacy, my wife and my children, of my workmates that has been violated through illegal information leaks that should be in the custody of the Justice.
Under the cover of the first known cases in the press and then by directly and legally interested, They were practiced unjustifiable acts of violence against my person and my family.
In this extreme situation, where I have been subtracted fundamental rights by state agents, externei my nonconformity in personal conversations, that would never have exceeded the limits of confidentiality, if they were not publicly exposed by a judicial decision that offends the law and the right.
I do not expect ministers and ministers of the Supreme Court share my personal positions and policies.
But not Conform me, this episode, words extracted illegally from personal conversations, protected by Article 5. the Constitution, become the subject of derogatory judgments about my character.
I do not Conform me that particular words spoken are treated as public offense, before proceeding to an impartial examination, free and courageous illegal lifting of the confidentiality of information.
I do not Conform me that the very personal value judgment to override the right.
I did not have access agrandes formal studies, as you know Brazilians. I'm not a doctor, lawyer, jurisconsulto. But I know, as every human being, distinguish right from wrong; right from wrong.
Sad and shameful episodes of recent weeks will not make me disbelieve the institution of the judiciary. Nor make me lose hope in discernment, balance and sense of proportion of ministers and ministers of the Supreme Court.
Justice, simply justice, I hope so, for me and for all, in full respect of the democratic rule of law.