✓ verbatim from the press ? no verbatim passage
The judgment of appeal AREspe 0600354-26.2024.6.26.0220 occurred in May 2026, confirming a decision by the São Paulo Regional Electoral Court (TRE-SP) that condemned the politicians for using a service at the Foursquare Gospel Church for electoral promotion. According to the case, the candidates took the pulpit during a religious ceremony in August 2024 and received prayers asking for electoral success, with the pastor declaring that the faithful would be "aligned" with the candidates. ?
Press quotes (1)
"A decisão foi tomada no julgamento de recurso apresentado pela então prefeita e candidata à reeleição Fabíola Alves (PSDB), pelo candidato a vice-prefeito Cezar Silva (PSDB) e pelo pastor Lilo (MDB), que concorria à reeleição para a Câmara Municipal."
The investigation also found an unjustified 34% increase in rent paid by the city hall to a church property during Fabíola's term, which was considered a possible economic benefit to the religious entity in an electoral context. The three politicians are ineligible for eight years. ✓
Press quotes (2)
"O julgamento do recurso ocorreu de forma unânime no Tribunal Superior Eleitoral. O processo tramita sob o número AREspe 0600354-26.2024.6.26.0220."
"os candidatos subiram ao púlpito durante a cerimônia e receberam orações que pediam por seu sucesso eleitoral"
Covered by only some sources, or where the accounts diverge.
Covered by only some sources (2)
-
Who was the reporting justice for the appeal at the TSE?
Why it's still unknown: Only one source mentions that the conviction was upheld by Justice Antonio Carlos Ferreira, but does not specify whether he was the rapporteur or session president.
-
What was the specific doctrinal framework applied by the TSE to characterize abuse of power?
Why it's still unknown: Sources mention there was political and economic abuse of power, but do not detail which jurisprudential test or specific precedent was applied.
-
Was there any manifestation from the PGR or other amici curiae in the case?
Why it's still unknown: No source mentions participation by the Public Ministry or interested third parties in the appeal judgment.
-
What are the operational criteria to distinguish permitted religious mention from electoral abuse?
Why it's still unknown: The decision establishes that absence of explicit vote requests does not eliminate the offense, but sources do not detail practical dividing line for pastors and candidates.