ADI 6675
Direct Action of Unconstitutionality
Reporting Minister: Rosa Weber
CONTEXT
Since 2018, Brazil has experienced a rise in gun ownership. According to the Brazilian Forum on Public Security, between 2018 and 2022, the number of people registered as hunters, sport shooters, and collectors (CACs) increased by 665%. Meanwhile, the number of ammunition sold in the national market grew by 147%. In 2021, four decrees issued by the Federal Government expanded access to firearms for CACs and reduced the level of control over the circulation and commercialization of weapons and ammunition in the country.
LAWSUIT
The lawsuit targeted the reduction of oversight and the facilitation of gun ownership, including restricted-use firearms, arguing that it violated constitutional principles related to the protection of life and citizens’ security (Articles 1, III; 5; 144; 227; and 230 of the Constitution).
RESULT
The Supreme Court recognized that the decrees introduced a policy incompatible with the Disarmament Statute (Law 10.826/2003), which enshrines the constitutional values of protecting human life and promoting public security against terrorism and deaths caused by the misuse of firearms.
IMPACT
Rafael Carneiro, the author of the lawsuit, praised the decision: “As has been widely demonstrated, easing the purchase and use of firearms and ammunition in Brazil will lead to an increase in violent crimes such as murders and femicides, in addition to posing a threat to institutional stability. Society has nothing to gain from this,” said Carneiro.
ADPF 1017
Arguement of Non-compliance with Fundamental Precept
Reporting Minister: Gilmar Mendes
CONTEXT
In recent years, the Brazilian justice system has been misused to politically interfere in the electoral process. Judicial measures were taken against politicians during the election cycle, posing a serious risk of interference in the election results and the democratic process.
LAWSUIT
Based on the principles of popular sovereignty, the democratic process, and the freedom of active and passive suffrage (Articles 1, §1, and 14 of the Constitution), as well as the separation of powers (Article 2 of the Constitution), the lawsuit sought recognition that immunity granted to candidates during the electoral period should also apply throughout the second round of elections for majoritarian positions. Previously, the prohibition of candidate imprisonment was limited to five days before and 48 hours after the election. The lawsuit also requested that electoral immunity be extended to preventive criminal measures, preventing actions such as the removal of a candidate from office without a proper basis during the second-round campaign.
RESULT
The STF accepted the lawsuit and recognized the need for a special restraint by the justice system in electoral contexts to avoid violations of voting freedom.
IMPACT
In one of the cases, lawyer Felipe Santos Corrêa argued that the preventive measure of suspending a governor benefited his opponent. By overturning a decision from the STJ, Gilmar Mendes prohibited “preventive measures (including those other than imprisonment) against candidates for executive offices and other majoritarian positions from 15 days before the first round until 48 hours after the end of a possible second round of elections.”