By Hotspotnews
In a refreshing display of courage rarely seen in Brazilian politics, Romeu Zema, the former governor of Minas Gerais and a leading conservative pre-candidate for the 2026 presidential election, has placed reforming the Supreme Federal Court (STF) at the very top of his agenda. His “Brazil Without Untouchables” plan promises to end what he calls the “farra dos intocáveis” — the unchecked party of the untouchables who treat the highest court like their personal fiefdom. Zema wants age minimums, fixed terms for ministers, bans on family business dealings with parties before the court, and real accountability, including opening impeachment processes when ministers overstep.
Zema has not minced words. He has directly criticized powerful figures like Alexandre de Moraes and Dias Toffoli, arguing they deserve not just impeachment but prison for alleged abuses and conflicts of interest exposed in cases like Banco Master. For millions of Brazilians tired of seeing the STF act as an unelected super-legislature — censoring speech, issuing monocratic decisions that bypass the full court, and shielding its own from scrutiny — Zema’s stance sounds like long-overdue common sense. The people who lecture the nation on ethics should at least follow basic rules themselves.
Yet when asked whether STF President Edson Fachin would back this vision of a “new STF,” the answer is a resounding no. Fachin, who assumed the presidency of the court in late 2025, has taken a markedly different path. While he has acknowledged a “credibility crisis” at the STF amid ongoing scandals, his solution is purely internal and modest: pushing for the court’s first formal Code of Ethics. Drafted under Justice Cármen Lúcia, it would set guidelines on conflicts of interest and family ties, but it would be self-regulated by the justices themselves — no external oversight, no term limits, no real curbs on lifetime power.
Fachin’s record shows a consistent defense of judicial independence and institutional prestige. Appointed by former President Dilma Rousseff and viewed as progressive on issues like land reform, he has emphasized collegiality, restraint, and the court’s role as guardian of democracy. He has worked behind the scenes to manage internal tensions rather than invite congressional or popular intervention. Supporting — or even remaining neutral toward — a presidential candidate openly promising to restructure the STF and hold ministers accountable in the aggressive way Zema proposes would contradict everything Fachin stands for. It would amount to endorsing limits on the very power the current court has grown comfortable wielding.
This clash highlights a deeper divide in Brazilian politics. Zema represents the outsider conservative push for accountability: fixed 15-year terms, minimum age requirements, mandatory recusals in conflicted cases, and an end to ministers’ families profiting from cases before the court. He frames the STF as the worst in history, with values reversed — where ordinary citizens face harsh rules while elites operate above them. Fachin, by contrast, offers insider reform: a polite ethics code that changes little about the lifetime appointments or the court’s expansive interpretation of its own authority.
The consequences of this standoff could be significant. If Zema gains traction in 2026, his platform could rally conservatives and independents frustrated by years of perceived judicial activism. A president committed to sending a reform bill to Congress might force a national debate on whether the STF needs structural limits to restore balance among the branches of government. Public pressure could grow for impeachments or constitutional amendments, energizing voters who see the court as part of the problem rather than the solution.
On the other hand, Fachin’s resistance signals the court’s likely strategy: contain the crisis internally, portray external reform as an attack on democracy itself, and hope the ethics code provides enough cover to weather the storm. Without genuine buy-in from within the marble halls of the STF, Zema’s “new Supreme” risks being blocked or diluted in Congress, where entrenched interests often prevail.
For too long, Brazilians have watched powerful institutions protect their own while demanding perfection from everyone else. Zema’s refusal to stay silent — even facing potential backlash — offers a rare example of a politician putting the people first. Whether Fachin and his colleagues eventually face real reform or continue with self-serving tweaks will test whether Brazil’s democracy can truly hold its elites accountable. The 2026 election may decide if the untouchables finally lose their shield or keep ruling from the bench. Ordinary citizens deserve a Supreme Court that serves the Constitution, not itself. Zema is betting they agree.