Retired STF Justice Celso de Mello turns 80 and, in an interview with Folha, stresses the need for internal cohesion in the court to counter external attacks. He defends the Supreme Court's rulings in the coup plot trial that convicted Jair Bolsonaro and reaffirms the tribunal's independence against foreign pressures. Mello notes that no power survives the disunity of its members.
Celso de Mello, born in Tatuí (SP), was appointed to the STF by President José Sarney in August 1989 and served for 31 years until October 2020. His tenure featured landmark rulings, including the criminalization of homophobia, abortion for anencephalic fetuses, approval of the Marcha da Maconha, and establishing the principle of insignificance in 2004.
In a written interview with Folha on the occasion of his 80th birthday on November 1, 2025, Mello states that the first duty of ministers is to 'preserve internal cohesion, reciprocal trust, and mutual respect that sustain the tribunal's legitimacy.' He warns: 'No power survives the disunity of its members.'
The former justice praises the STF's handling of the coup attempt trial that convicted Jair Bolsonaro (PL), noting that the court reaffirmed democratic rule of law values. On Minister Alexandre de Moraes's conduct, Mello says he acted 'with observance of constitutional and legal limits,' respecting due process and full defense.
Facing foreign attacks, such as those from Donald Trump's U.S. government against STF justices, Mello insists the tribunal must uphold national sovereignty: 'The Supreme Court does not bow: it sustains, with dignity, the sovereignty of the Constitution and the laws of the Republic.' He emphasizes that public dissatisfaction from certain segments does not undermine judicial legitimacy, as the STF derives authority from the Constitution, not majority will.
Mello also addresses media pressure in high-profile cases like the mensalão, stating judges must rule with serenity and independence. He quotes Minister Alexandre de Moraes: 'Freedom of expression is not freedom of aggression. Freedom of expression is not freedom to destroy democracy.'