President of the Court accepted the request of the City Hall, which alleges that this type of decision is the responsibility of the Executive, and is not an attribution of the Judiciary
O Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro accepted this Tuesday morning, the request for suspension of the injunction, which prevented the resumption of face-to-face classrooms in the capital of Rio de Janeiro, presented by Rio de Janeiro’s city hall. The Municipality disputes the decision of Judge Roberto Câmara Lace Brandão, of the Judicial Service, who stated that the return is hasty and that, in the context of the worsening pandemic of the coronavirus in the city, it proves to be “without apparent valid motivation”. Roberto Câmara’s decision was upheld by the judge of the 2nd Public Finance Court. The City Hall, however, alleges that decisions that include the functioning of daycare centers, schools, educational establishments and the like, whether public or private, are the responsibility of the Executive, not being the responsibility of the Judiciary.
“What prevails is respect for the criteria used by the Executive Branch, who, by constitutional nature, are responsible for defining their action plans to combat the pandemic. The separation of powers must be respected, given the need to observe the administrative choices made based on technical guidelines, and it is not for the judge to replace the administrator in the decisions taken ”, justified the judge Henrique Carlos de Andrade Figueira, President of the Court of Justice Rio de Janeiro. The judge resumed the decision of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), which stated that it is not for the Judiciary to decide where and how restrictive measures should be implemented in the pandemic.
The magistrate also took into account the justification presented by the City Hall that all schools follow the rotation system between their employees and students, keeping their distance and due care pertinent and stressed that parents can choose whether or not to let their children attend classes. . According to the dispatch, the return to school was defined based on technical criteria, “through the completion of a study in the sense that children and adolescents have a low risk of disease transmission”. The judge points out that all schools had enough time to adapt to the challenges imposed by the pandemic.
