Integrity and governance in the selection of public official to direction functions in the structure of state attorney's offices

Abstract

Over time, the criteria for appointment to direction functions and assistance positions in the public administration structure had few changes. With the exception of the anti-nepotism rule arising from judgment binding 13 of the Supreme Court, the custom of making decisions on these appointments without any transparency and motivation has not changed in recent decades. Even with the rule of article 37 of the Republic Constitution providing for impersonality, publicity, and subsequently, efficiency, no significant change occurred in the form of election for commissioned positions, largely due to the fact that administrative discretion was expanded in contrariety of the constitutional command. However, integrity and public governance bring new guidelines for the appointment of commissioned positions, which is the object of the study. The Marielle Franco case is an example, in which it is demonstrated that if there was an integrity system focused on self-inspection and anti-corruption, criminal engineering would become costlier. In the structure of public law, the rules of the National Treasury Attorney's Office are analyzed as an example which define the peer voting system as classified for the appointment of management positions. Concluded that the adoption of transparent and participatory recruitment for decision-making generates greater legitimacy in the choice, in accordance with the objectives of public governance, in addition to prioritizing self-inspection and strengthening the anti-corruption system.