In the judgment at the beginning of the year, it was decided at ADPF 703, under the rapporteur of Alexandre de Moraes, that Anajure does not have the legitimacy to present to the Supreme Court actions of concentrated control of constitutionality, as is the case of the request now accepted by Nunes Marques.
According to the STF plenary, it is only allowed to bring actions like these when formulated by class entities and union confederations, the participation of associations that congregate people linked by intellectual and religious convictions and practices is forbidden.
At the same time contradicting the understanding of the court and his own vote in ADPF 703, Nunes Marques said that the request for the release of services and masses differs from the previous trial involving Anajure because the new request has a “fundamental relationship” with the “essential objectives” association, including religious freedom.
“For prudence, at least at this procedural moment, this Supreme Court must honor the instrumentality of the process, insofar as the object of this action says with the protection of freedom of worship and religion, constitutional guarantee”, said the minister.
It turns out that ADPF 703 was also proposed on the grounds that decrees were hurting religious freedom. On the occasion, Anajure challenged measures that impose a curfew during the night, saying that the initiatives violate state secularity by making the displacement of “religious ministers” unfeasible.
According to a report published by Folha de S. Paulo this Monday (5/4), Nunes Marques’ decision bothered ministers of the Supreme Court. This is because, with the exception of end-of-year recesses, preliminary injunctions in constitutional lawsuits should have the vote of at least six ministers, not just one.
“The Supreme Court is not in recess from December 20 to 31 of the same month or on collective holidays, what hurry was that? We are not an executive, we do not govern, we do not have expertise in the matter. , Minister Marco Aurélio told Folha.
There is still no date for Nunes Marques’ decision to be taken to the Plenary of the Supreme Court, since the minister has not yet released the case for the appreciation of colleagues.
Minister Gilmar Mendes, however, must judge an action by the Social Democratic Party that also challenges the ban on worship in São Paulo, according to Mônica Bergamo. Since the request for the acronym is likely to be denied, the Plenary’s appreciation of the validity of religious ceremonies can be advanced.
In addition, the municipality of Belo Horizonte asked the president of the Supreme Court, Minister Luiz Fux, to suspend the injunction granted by Nunes Marques.
At ADPF, Anajure says that Article 6 of Municipal Decree 031/2020, by João Monlevade, in Minas Gerais, violates the Constitution by prohibiting religious ceremonies. With that in mind, he requested the suspension of the article, “as well as the other state and municipal decrees that determine the suspension / prohibition / prohibition of religious activities”.
In deciding, Nunes Marques did not limit himself to suspending the passages of the decrees. On the contrary, it determined that states, the Federal District and municipalities refrain from editing or demanding compliance with local administrative decrees or acts that completely prohibit religious celebrations, giving Anajure’s request national coverage.
According to the constitutionalist lawyer William Gabriel Waclawovsky, the decision does not seem to extrapolate Anajure’s request, since in saying that the ADPF should be valid for all “state and municipal decrees”, the association opened the scope for a broader determination.
“If the intention were to address only the municipality of Minas Gerais, possibly the association would use something like ‘decrees of the state and the municipality’. But the request, really, was not clear”, says the lawyer.
Already constitutionalist Vera chemim says that any decision made in the course of an ADPF, even if an injunction, is valid for everyone. “This justifies the fact that the decision is valid for states, the federal district and municipalities”, he says.
Get the latest news delivered to your inbox
Follow us on social media networks