The responsibility of the attorney general to decide on assignment conflicts between Federal and State MPs

The Plenary of the Federal Supreme Court decided on Thursday (19) that it is not for the Court to judge disputes between the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office and the State Prosecutors' Offices. A majority of the Ministers were not aware of the Original Civil Actions (ACO) 924 and 1394 and of the Petitions (Pet) 4706 and 4863, someone to write a research paper with the understanding that the matter is not jurisdictional, but administrative, and should be referred to the attorney general of the Republic. Until then, the jurisprudence of the STF was to know and resolve conflicts on a case-by-case basis.

ACO 924 deals with a negative conflict of attributions established by the Umuarama District Attorney's Office (PR), in order to define the allocation for the conduct of civil investigations that investigate alleged overbilling in the construction of housing complexes with financial resources from the FGTS, released by Caixa Econômica Federal. The Attorney General's Office in Paraná understood that the State Court of Justice was responsible for the prosecution and judgment of a possible public civil action to be proposed, but the Assistant Attorney General of the State of Paraná considered it to be the assignment of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office, and referred the documents to the STF. The trial of the case was initiated in May 2013. The rapporteur, Minister Luiz Fux, raised a preliminary question suggesting that there was no federative conflict, and therefore, the STF should not be aware of the fact. Ministers Teori Zavascki, Joaquim Barbosa (retired), Luís Roberto Barroso and Rosa Weber followed this understanding. Minister Marco Aurélio opened a dispute, in order to know the conflict and establish the attribution of the MPF.

 In bringing the convergent vote-view session with the rapporteur today, Minister Dias Toffoli noted that referral of attribution conflicts to the STF often interrupts investigations "for years on end, sometimes decades." For him, it is not for the judiciary to settle these conflicts, but to direct them to the Attorney General, who, as head of the Public Prosecution, decides them as he or she understands by law. For Minister Toffoli, allocation conflicts are an internal issue of the institution. "In spite of the irradiation of its attributions in various organs, the MP is a single and indivisible institution, and has a central body, the Attorney General of the Republic," he said, paralleling the attribution of the PGR, of national, to propose Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality, to choose the representative of the State Public Ministries in the National Council of Justice and to present to the STF requests for intervention in the states. In the same vein, Ministers Gilmar Mendes, Carmen Lúcia and Ricardo Lewandowski voted. 

The Online assignment help President of the Court observed that, in addition to being an administrative and non-jurisdictional matter, the STF "is not in a position to give discharge to the myriad requests for the resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction in a timely manner", and many cases may be subject to limitation given the unintended delay in its solution. Lewandowski emphasized, however, the principle of inafasability of jurisdiction. "If the Attorney General of the Republic issues a decision considered teratological or contrary to the rights of the parties, there will always be recourse to the Supreme Court," he said. Divergence Minister Marco Aurélio, rapporteur for Pets 4706 and 4863, reiterated the vote already made in the OCAs that, when the Constitution of the Republic does not designate the body competent to resolve a conflict, it is incumbent upon the STF to do so. He pointed out that the Attorney General of the Republic is head of the Federal Public Ministry, but not of the state, who are headed by the attorney general.