The following article, signed by Patrícia Villela Marino, was originally published in the newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo on October 18th.
We are experiencing a historical inflection point in the world’s democratic trajectory. While the United States — once an unquestionable bastion of democratic values — plunges into institutional convulsions, Brazil emerges as a beacon of democracy. The Economist magazine and a generation of political scientists recognize in our nation an example of combating authoritarian outbursts, an achievement orchestrated, to a large extent, by the firm and republican action of the Brazilian Judiciary. It is precisely this protagonism that makes it even more dissonant when individual magistrates, misaligned with the historical moment, choose the path of opacity over transparency.
The conviction, in May, of journalist Rosane de Oliveira and the newspaper Zero Hora to pay R$600,000 in moral damages for exposing the income of a judge from Rio Grande do Sul represents not a systemic failure, but reveals the myopia of individuals who did not understand the magnitude of the role that the Brazilian Judiciary plays today.
Every decision that privileges corporatism over accountability constitutes a crack in the edifice of institutional credibility, offering fuel to those who propagate the (false and antidemocratic) narrative of “dictatorship of the Judiciary.” What should remain as a lie devoid of substance runs the risk of acquiring an air of verisimilitude, not by the strength of authoritarian arguments, but by the conduct of a few who deviated from the exemplary trajectory followed by the institution.
When a journalist is sanctioned for revealing that a magistrate received R$662,000 in a single month — public information, available on the Transparency Portal — the debate about professional practice is transcended. What is questioned are the foundations of participatory democracy, in which informed criticism and transparency constitute inviolable pillars of a State that intends to be republican.
Contemporary democratic life is inseparable from professional investigative journalism. From the Watergate revelations to the developments of Operation Car Wash Leaks, from the Panama Papers to the Secret Budget, the free press has functioned as the immune system of open societies, protecting them from the pathologies of concentrated power. When magistrates punish those who exercise this essential function, they not only violate constitutional precepts — they weaken the foundations of their own democratic legitimacy.
However, there are edifying examples in the Judiciary that deserve to be highlighted. The recent decision by Judge Juliana Petenate Salles, who ordered the prohibition of content with artistic child labor on social networks without judicial authorization, exemplifies magistrates who understand their transformative role in society. By recognizing that “keeping children and adolescents exposed on social networks for profit generates serious and immediate risks,” the magistrate materializes what constitutes the essence of the contemporary Judiciary: social sensitivity, attunement to society, and democratic commitment.
If the Brazilian Judiciary has conquered, through its exemplary action in democratic preservation, a prominent place on the world stage, it is up to individual magistrates to be up to the historical moment, embracing transparency and accountability as instruments of strengthening, not threatening, institutional legitimacy. This choice will determine whether Brazil will continue to be a democratic beacon for a world in crisis or whether it will allow misaligned individual conduct to diminish the brightness of its light.
Opinion by Patrícia Villela Marino
Lawyer, president of Humanitas360 Institute
