The Supreme Federal Court (STF) is scheduled to resume on Wednesday the hearing that examines the scope of the Ministry of Public’s (MP) power to requisition information, documents, exams, temporary staff and material resources from public bodies. The trial, which began last Thursday, was suspended after five justices voted. So far, a majority favors maintaining the MP’s requisition authority but imposing limits.
The case was filed by the government of Santa Catarina, which challenges two provisions of the Union Ministry of Public’s (MPU) Organic Law. The state argues that, while the Constitution grants the MP the power to request information and documents, demanding civil servants and material resources interferes with states’ administrative autonomy.
Relator Justice Kassio Nunes Marques affirmed that the prerogative is necessary for the MP to exercise its constitutional functions, but is not absolute. He said requests for exams, expert assessments, temporary staff and material resources must observe the criteria of exceptionality, subsidiarity, temporariness, motivation and proportionality, and that the administration may refuse a requisition, provided it is justified, when compliance would compromise its own services.
Justices Cristiano Zanin, Gilmar Mendes and André Mendonça followed the relator’s vote, incorporating his suggestions. Justice Flávio Dino partially diverged, advocating that the requisition of information, exams, expert assessments and documents be preserved, but that, concerning public servants, the term “requisition” be interpreted as a request to the administration, not as a compulsory order.
The Brazilian Association of Members of the Ministry of Public for the Environment (Abrampa) warned that any restriction on the MP’s requisition power could hinder environmental damage investigations and limit vulnerable communities’ access to justice. According to the association, making certain requisitions non‑obligatory could force prosecutors to turn to the Judiciary to obtain information currently obtained directly from public administration.
"Without rapid access to expert assessments, exams, reports and technical information, the MP may find it harder to gather a complete evidentiary body before deciding whether to dismiss a case, sign a conduct adjustment agreement (TAC) or file a lawsuit," said Luciano Loubet, an environmental prosecutor and Abrampa’s president.
Abrampa cited data from the National Council of the Ministry of Public (CNMP) and the National Council of Justice (CNJ): of the 65,500 public civil environmental actions filed nationwide over the last 30 years, about 58,000 (88%) were brought by the MP. In 2024, environmental issues accounted for the highest number of investigative procedures initiated by the MP, with 21,855 cases.
The association argues that eventual abuses should be controlled afterward by the Judiciary or the CNMP, rather than allowing the recipient agency to decide in advance whether to fulfill a requisition.