## Facts

- The Superior Justice Tribunal (STJ) issued a judicial decision that reinstated the mayor of São Paulo after the mayor had been removed from office amid corruption allegations.
- Paulo de Oliveira filed a constitutional popular action (*ação popular*) directly in Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (STF) against the STJ, asserting that the STJ’s reinstatement decision made it complicit in corrupt dealings.
- The filing was docketed as Petition No. 2018 (São Paulo) and proceeded in the STF under its procedures for matters presented by petition (*petição*).
- The STF refused to entertain the popular action on procedural grounds tied to (i) the STF’s lack of constitutionally granted original jurisdiction over popular actions and (ii) the nature of the challenged act as jurisdictional (a court judgment), not administrative.
- Paulo de Oliveira sought internal review by filing a regulatory interlocutory appeal (*agravo regimental*) within the same petition.
- The STF’s Second Panel (*Segunda Turma*), with Justice Celso de Mello as rapporteur, decided the *agravo regimental* and addressed only jurisdiction and admissibility.

## Issues

1. Does the STF have original jurisdiction to hear a constitutional popular action filed directly in the STF against the STJ?
2. Can a popular action (*ação popular*) be used to attack an act of jurisdictional content—i.e., a judicial decision—rather than an administrative act?

## Decision

- The STF (Second Panel) unanimously denied the *agravo regimental*.
- The Court maintained the disposition that it would not take cognizance of the popular action (*ação popular de que não se conhece*).
- The Court held that the Federal Constitution’s enumerated list of the STF’s original jurisdiction does not include constitutional popular actions, so the STF cannot hear such actions as a court of first instance.
- The Court held that a popular action is not an admissible procedural vehicle to invalidate acts of judicial content; challenges to judgments must proceed through the ordinary appellate routes or, where legally available after finality, by rescissory action (*ação rescisória*).

## Legal Principles

- The STF’s original jurisdiction is strictly defined by the Constitution; absent an express grant, the STF cannot assume original jurisdiction over a constitutional popular action.
- Popular actions target unlawful administrative conduct affecting public patrimony and related protected interests; they are not substitutes for appeals.
- Judicial acts are governed by a separate challenge structure: if not final, they may be contested by the remedies provided in procedural law; if final on the merits, they may be attacked only through the legally defined extraordinary mechanism (typically a rescissory action).

## Conclusion

In *Paulo de Oliveira v. Superior Justice Tribunal (Pet. 2018 AgR)*, the STF refused to hear a popular action filed directly against an STJ reinstatement judgment and, on internal appeal, reaffirmed that it lacks original jurisdiction over popular actions and that such actions cannot be used to annul judicial decisions, which must be contested through the appellate system or (when available) a rescissory action.


Paulo de Oliveira v. Superior Justice Tribunal, Regulatory Interlocutory Appeal on Petition 2018-9 (São Paulo) Pet. 2018 AgR (2000)