Judges fear changes in magistrate law will mean a loss of privileges

Although the spotlight has recently been on the debate at the Supreme Court regarding the powers of the National Justice Council (“Conselho Nacional de Justiça – CNJ”) to investigate misconduct by judges, that discussion has brought to the fore another matter that disturbs judges: a revision of the magistrate law (“Lei Orgânica da Magistratura – Loman”).
The reason for the discussion of investigative powers for the CNJ was outdated legislation on the subject; specifically, norms that dated from 1979. And that is the same situation with the Loman: it is a law that dates from before the 1988 constitution and needs to be updated with appropriate legislation.
However, three national associations that represent judges have all voiced opposition to a revision at this moment, although in the past they were at the forefront of efforts to rewrite the norms.
The representative of the Association of Federal Judges (“Ajufe”), Fabrício de Castro, states the case succinctly: “The Legislative and Executive branches want to weigh our guarantees down (“hipertrofiar”). Sending the Loman to Congress now would be like handing a blank check to people who want to intimidate the judiciary,” he declared, explaining that small changes in the Loman would be acceptable, but not a complete revision at this time. “It is not acceptable to have legislation that worsens the situation of judges. Our position is surrender zero in terms of rights,” concluded Castro.
Meanwhile, Renato Sant’Anna, president of another association of judges (“Anamatra”) observes: “They say that Congress might modify Loman, but legislation that removes or ruptures the rights of judges is characteristic of dictatorships.” Sant’Anna adds that a new Loman could include meal and sabbatical clauses (“o auxílio-alimentação e a licença-prêmio”) such as those guaranteed by law for government attorneys (“Lei Orgânica do Ministério Público – MP”).
“You cannot violate democracy just to please public opinion,” declared Nelson Calandra, of another judge association, the AMB.
There seems to be concern that the public is not pleased with the 60-day vacations judges get and the fact that the maximum penalty for misconduct is mandatory retirement with full pay.