The president of the Superior Council for the Judiciary (CSM) considers the negationist position on the covid-19 pandemic assumed by Judge Rui Fonseca e Castro, of the Odemira Court, “corrosive to the image of justice” and defends changes in the training process and selection of magistrates.
“People do not understand how such a person is exercising functions,” admitted António Joaquim Piçarra, in an interview with the Lusa agency, recalling that the Council, “as soon as it became aware of its public positions, quickly acted, opened an investigation process discipline and preventively suspended it ”.
For the president of the Supreme Court of Justice and due to the CSM, the judge’s public stance is corrosive to the image of justice. It should be remembered that on March 14, the Sunrise reported that the magistrate, “who had been on unpaid leave for ten years, has been accused of encouraging citizens to complain about the security forces by publishing a minutes, through the page Jurists for Truth, which aims to give all those who live the ‘severe restrictions to the exercise of rights, freedoms and guarantees (…) the possibility of asserting the same’ with or without recourse to attorney services’ “.
After nine days, the CSM decided to preventively prevent the current leader of the page Habeas Corpus, who disputes the state of emergency, pending the investigation open to the conduct of the magistrate. It should also be remembered that the PSP made a participation of the magistrate to the CSM because of an interview in which he appealed for civil disobedience and, the next day, Fonseca e Castro announced, on Facebook, that he was the target of a disciplinary inquiry by the CSM for their positions against the state of emergency.
During his nearly three-year term at the helm of the CSM, there were several cases of judges who were brought to disciplinary proceedings for suspected corruption, sweepstakes, abuse of power and, according to António Piçarra, these cases can also be fought through of a more rigorous process of selection of who goes to the judiciary, in that “there must be a greater rigor in the selection of the entrance of the candidates”, he declared, defending the accomplishment of psychological exams to the students of the Center of Judicial Studies (CEJ) .
“All of us are in fact subject to changes in our personal lives and in our behaviors, but the council needs to be attentive in order to detect them in time to be eradicated because the judiciary cannot have people who are not healthy. the Council has demonstrated, I myself proposed, that it does not need to wait for the prosecution or conviction to institute disciplinary proceedings and if it considers that, in view of the evidence that is in the disciplinary process, even if collected from the crime investigation, it can lead to expulsive sanctions ”, he said. , adding that “disciplinary action is independent from criminal action and in the disciplinary process functional duties are at stake and that is what the council has to evaluate”.