Renan Santos, a presidential candidate from the Missão party, said he will not comply with Supreme Federal Court (STF) rulings he deems illegal.
This stance signals a potential constitutional crisis if Santos wins the presidency, as it suggests a willingness to bypass the highest judicial authority in Brazil to protect his policy agenda.
Santos made the remarks during a series of interviews conducted by Globo, where he was one of six candidates invited [1]. He appeared as the third candidate in the series [2]. In a first interview aired on Aug. 5 [3], Santos addressed the role of the judiciary in government operations.
"If the Supreme Federal Court makes an illegal decision, it will not be complied with in my government," Santos said [4].
He specifically targeted individual rulings, saying that he would not obey monocratic decisions from the STF that he considers illegal [5]. Santos said that following such rulings would undermine the sovereignty of his government and hinder his ability to implement his platform [6].
Throughout the interview process, which included a subsequent session on Aug. 26 [7], Santos maintained that judicial overreach could impede executive action. He said that if the STF takes a decision he considers illegal, he will not obey [8].
The comments have drawn attention to the tension between the executive and judicial branches in Brazil. The STF holds the final word on the constitutionality of laws, and a president's refusal to follow its mandates would represent a significant departure from established legal norms.
“"If the Supreme Federal Court makes an illegal decision, it will not be complied with in my government."”
The statements by Renan Santos highlight a growing trend of executive candidates challenging judicial authority in Brazil. By explicitly stating a conditional refusal to obey the STF, Santos is positioning himself as a disruptor of the current legal order, which could either appeal to voters frustrated with the judiciary or raise alarms regarding the stability of the country's democratic checks and balances.
