RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – Judge Daniele Maranhão Costa, of the TRF-1 (1st Region Federal Appellate Court), overturned the temporary restraining order issued by a federal district court that ordered President Jair Bolsonaro to wear a mask when going out in public in the Federal District, as a means of prevention against the novel coronavirus.
The wearing of a mask is mandatory in the Federal District. But on several different occasions, the President walked the streets without the protective equipment. Last Saturday, the President traveled to Araguari, in Minas Gerais with no mask and led to crowding on the side of a road. Rather than wearing the mask covering his nose and mouth, as recommended to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, he was holding it in his hands.
In the ruling, the appellate court judge stated that the fact that there is already a local Federal District (DF) government decree enforcing the wearing of masks in public places, removes the need for courts to act in this case, and that the type of lawsuit, a class action, is not the appropriate legal remedy.
According to the judge, Bolsonaro is already be required to wear a mask by virtue of the DF local government decree, so it is not necessary for it to be reiterated by the courts.
“The Judiciary does not lend itself to the purpose of increasing the penalty in place for non-compliance with the rule, at the risk of misuse of jurisdiction and undermining the separation of powers, when the Federal District, using its police power, can enforce the requirement, or sanction the violator by imposing a fine, in case of non-compliance,” says the judge in the ruling.
The lower court decision was by Judge Renato Coelho Borelli, of the 9th Civil Federal Court of the DF, in a class action brought by an attorney. The AGU (Federal Solicitor General) appealed the decision to TRF-1.
Last month, Brazil’s then Minister of Education Abraham Weintraub was fined R$2,000 (US$400) for not wearing a mask during a rally held in Brasília.
The Federal District government decree provides that, in addition to the fine, anyone who fails to comply with the rule may also be held liable for a health crime, with a penalty that may reach one year in prison.
Source: UOL