Crisis of trust in Brazil: the parent inquiry and justice in question.

The current situation in Brazil regarding the xandonic jurisdiction and the controversial inquérito-pai, which investigates the so-called Fake News, has sparked a growing debate about the independence of the judiciary and the limits of judicial power. Since Alexandre de Moraes took over the presidency of this inquiry in 2019, the legal framework supporting it has faced criticism, and revelations about its functioning have called into question not only its objective but also the legitimacy of the actions carried out in its name. Recently, Supreme Federal Court Minister Luís Roberto Barroso gave an interview to Folha in which he defended his colleague Moraes, emphasizing the distinction between leaks and their content. However, Barroso's response has been interpreted as an evasion of the essence of the problem: it is not just about the leak, but about what the messages reveal regarding the use of the judiciary for purposes that go beyond mere administration of justice. The dialogues that have come to light not only demonstrate the instrumentalization of power by Moraes and his advisors but also raise the question of who the real victim is in this plot. The lack of clarity regarding the purpose of the investigation has led many to question the ethics behind Moraes' actions, who, instead of defending the integrity of the system, seems to prioritize his own image and that of the court he represents. The xandonic jurisdiction, a term that has begun to gain popularity to describe the current situation, is characterized by a selective approach to investigation, where decisions about what to investigate largely depend on the convenience of power. This phenomenon has been fueled by an inquiry that, initially aimed at addressing misinformation and threats to democracy, has transformed into a tool of control that allows its perpetrators to act with impunity. One of the most concerning aspects is how the prolongation of the inquiry has exposed the elasticity of the concept of honor, especially among those in positions of power. The censorship of a report revealing connections between former President Lula and businessman Marcelo Odebrecht is a clear example of how justice can be manipulated based on particular interests, generating distrust in the impartiality of the system. As the inquiry has expanded, its scope has become unclear, contributing to the feeling that a legal framework has been created to suit certain political actors. Criticism of this situation is not limited to political opposition; it also comes from sectors of civil society that see this dynamic as a danger to democracy and the rule of law in Brazil. It is vital for Brazilian society to question the legitimacy of institutions and the manner in which they exercise their power. The independence of the judiciary must be preserved, but not at the cost of transparency and accountability. The manipulation of inquiries and the lack of clarity in their operation not only affect the individuals involved but also erode public trust in justice. In this context, the role of the media becomes crucial. They must act as watchdogs of power, revealing truths that are often hidden behind the curtains of judicial bureaucracy. The press has the responsibility to report on irregularities and to give a voice to those who, like critics of the inquiry, are silenced by the state apparatus. The current situation invites deep reflection on the nature of power and justice in Brazil. The struggle to defend democracy cannot be an excuse for the abuse of power, and it is essential for citizens to demand clarity and justice at all levels of government. Only then can trust be rebuilt in a system that, at this moment, seems more concerned with its survival than with fulfilling its true purpose: to serve and protect society.