Buzzi Loss of Office Case Reaches Brazil’s Supreme Court as Government Seeks Pay Halt

Brazil · Judiciary

Brazil abolished forced retirement as a punishment for judges. The first test of what replaced it reached the Supreme Court on Monday.

For years the worst that happened to a Brazilian judge found to have misbehaved was compulsory retirement on a pension proportional to years of service. That changed in August, and the Buzzi loss of office case filed on Monday is the first time anyone has tried to use the new machinery. It is worth understanding because it sets the template.

What was filed, and what it asks for

The Attorney General’s Office, known in Brazil as the AGU, filed a civil loss-of-office action at the Supreme Court on Monday 21 September. It is a judicial case, not an administrative one, and it makes four main requests.

First, permanent loss of the post. Second, as urgent interim relief, that payment of his proportional salary stop at once. Third, in the alternative, that the money be paid into a court-held account rather than to him. Fourth, that the case run under seal to protect the complainants, and be judged with a gender perspective.

The AGU cited the Constitution, the organic law of the judiciary, the judiciary’s code of ethics and the 2019 pension reform. It called the case its first since the National Council of Justice (CNJ), the judiciary’s oversight body, rewrote the disciplinary rules.

No case number or assigned justice had been reported by Tuesday morning.

Why the Buzzi loss of office needs two courts

Many August headlines said the STJ had stripped Buzzi of his post. It did not remove him on 6 August. Its full court found the disciplinary charges proven and imposed a penalty called disponíbilidade. That means removal from duties on pay proportional to his years of pension contributions. Alongside it the court approved a proposal that he lose the office altogether.

A proposal is not a removal. Under the rules the CNJ adopted on 4 August, only the Supreme Court can decree loss of office, on a civil action brought by the AGU. That is why there is a second case at a second court.

The reason is a ruling by a five-justice Supreme Court panel on 26 May, upheld on 30 June. It held that punitive compulsory retirement lost its constitutional footing after the 2019 pension reform. Removing that penalty left a gap, and loss of office is what was put in its place.

The vote at the STJ was 28 justices taking part, unanimous that the infractions were proven, and 24 to four on the penalty. The four preferred compulsory retirement and were outvoted. The lead rapporteur, Justice Luis Felipe Salomão, delivered a 156-page vote.

The accusations, stated carefully

There are two complainants. One is the 18-year-old daughter of family friends, who says he tried to grab her at the beach in Balneário Camboriú, Santa Catarina, on 9 January 2026.

She reported it to police in São Paulo. The other, a former contract worker in his chambers, reported repeated harassment at the court between 2023 and 2025.

What has been established is administrative. The STJ found the disciplinary charges proven. There is no criminal conviction. A separate criminal inquiry was opened on 14 April by Supreme Court Justice Kassio Nunes Marques, and no charges have been reported from it.

Buzzi denies everything. His lawyers have described the accusations as “office gossip” and collusion, and on 28 August he hired new counsel for the Supreme Court stage. He is entitled to appeal, and the loss of office would only take effect once the case is finally decided.

The money, and what suspension would mean

An STJ justice earns a monthly base salary of R$44,047.88 (about US$8,590), set at 95 percent of the constitutional ceiling. Conversions here use a rate of 5.13 reais to the US dollar, the European Central Bank reference rate for 21 September 2026.

With allowances, his net pay topped R$100,000 (about US$19,500) in each of February and March, his first months of suspension, CNN Brasil reported from court transparency records.

For August, the first month under the penalty, he received about R$60,500 (about US$11,800) gross and R$36,600 (about US$7,140) net, O Tempo reported. By mid-August he had received at least R$300,000 (about US$58,500) net since his suspension, according to the Santa Catarina news site ND Mais.

If the Supreme Court grants the urgent request, payments stop entirely until judgment. If it grants only the alternative, the money accumulates in a court account. That interim decision can be taken by a single justice and is the first thing to watch.

Why this matters beyond one judge

Brazil has spent years arguing about whether its judiciary can discipline itself. The old answer, retirement on a pension, satisfied nobody and became a byword for impunity. Abolishing it was popular. Building the replacement is the harder part, and until Monday nobody had tested whether it works.

The questions this case will answer are procedural and dull and they matter. Can pay be stopped before a final ruling? Which forum decides, the full court or a panel? How long does it take? Whatever answers emerge become the standard for every judge who follows.

For anyone doing business in Brazil, judicial accountability is not an abstraction. It is part of what determines whether a contract, a licence or a tax assessment is decided on its merits. A system that can remove its own is a system with fewer reasons to distrust. That is the wider stake here, well beyond the conduct of one man in Santa Catarina.

Frequently Asked Questions

This article was produced by The Rio Times’ automated newsroom system. How we use AI · Report an error