{"id":1149,"date":"2026-04-23T20:52:07","date_gmt":"2026-04-23T23:52:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/murillogutier.com.br\/?p=1149"},"modified":"2026-04-23T20:52:07","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T23:52:07","slug":"is-the-brazilian-supreme-federal-court-a-criminal-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/murillogutier.com.br\/?p=1149","title":{"rendered":"Is the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court a Criminal Court?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Constitutional Critique of the Judgment in AP 1,060\/DF: Opportunistic Activism, the Weakening of Judicial Precedent, and the Transformation of the Brazilian Supreme Court into a Criminal Tribunal<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Murillo Gutier<\/strong> | murillo@gutier.adv.br<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This study offers a constitutional critique of the judgment in AP 1,060\/DF<\/strong> by the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court<\/strong> (Supremo Tribunal Federal – STF). The analysis focuses on the tension between this decision and the restrictive doctrine of special jurisdiction by reason of office<\/strong> (foro por prerrogativa de fun\u00e7\u00e3o<\/em>) consolidated in AP 937 QO\/RJ<\/strong> (2018) and ADI 2,553\/MA<\/strong> (2019). While these earlier rulings recognized special jurisdiction as an exception to the natural judge principle<\/strong>, binding it to offenses committed during the mandate and in the exercise of official functions, the AP 1,060\/DF decision pursued the opposite path: through the broad use of connection<\/strong>, the Court absorbed ordinary defendants on a massive scale, effectively transforming the STF into an ordinary Criminal Tribunal<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The study examines the inversion of the severance rule<\/strong>, the violation of the natural judge principle<\/strong> (Article 5, LIII and XXXVII of the Constitution), the deficit of dual jurisdiction<\/strong> (Article 8(2)(h) of the Pact of San Jos\u00e9), and the political context<\/strong> of the judgment and its impact on judicial serenity. Furthermore, the decision is analyzed through Georges Abboud’s typology of activisms<\/strong>, demonstrating that it cumulatively exhibits at least five activist modalities<\/strong>: performative activism, activism against the limits of the text, populist-punitivist activism, purely consequentialist activism, and administrative activism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, the study identifies the phenomenon of opportunistic activism<\/strong> (ativismo de ocasi\u00e3o<\/em>) as a recurring pattern in the STF’s recent jurisprudence: an interpretive stance that, under political pressure, loosens its own established precedents<\/strong>, thereby undermining the binding force<\/strong> of constitutional adjudication, the epistemic authority<\/strong> of the Court, and the constitutional jurisdictional architecture<\/strong> of Article 102 of the Federal Constitution. The study concludes that the decision constitutes a self-contradictory precedent<\/strong> that acts in the name of the Constitution against the Constitution itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keywords:<\/strong> special jurisdiction by reason of office; opportunistic activism; natural judge principle; judicial precedent; constitutional jurisdiction; AP 1,060\/DF; Brazilian Supreme Court (STF).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n\tIs the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court a Criminal Court? - Murillo Gutier\t(2 downloads\t)\n<\/a>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Constitutional Critique of the Judgment in AP 1,060\/DF: Opportunistic Activism, the Weakening of Judicial Precedent, and the Transformation of the Brazilian Supreme Court into a Criminal Tribunal Murillo Gutier | murillo@gutier.adv.br Abstract This study offers a constitutional critique of the judgment in AP 1,060\/DF by the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal – STF). … <\/p>\n

Continue lendo “Is the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court a Criminal Court?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"saved_in_kubio":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[71],"tags":[327,323,328,324,227,325,322,326],"class_list":["post-1149","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-direito-constitucional","tag-ap-1060-df","tag-brazilian-supreme-court-stf","tag-constitutional-jurisdiction","tag-judicial-precedent","tag-lingua-estrangeira","tag-natural-judge-principle","tag-opportunistic-activism","tag-special-jurisdiction-by-reason-of-office"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/murillogutier.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1149","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/murillogutier.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/murillogutier.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/murillogutier.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/murillogutier.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1149"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/murillogutier.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1149\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/murillogutier.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1149"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/murillogutier.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1149"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/murillogutier.com.br\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1149"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}