Prevarication within the Brazilian military: Competence deviations and administrative judgments

Abstract

Prevarication in the military context is a matter of grave concern, as it involves the practice of delaying, failing to perform, or improperly performing an official act with the intent to satisfy personal interests, as defined in Article 319 of the Military Penal Code. This crime applies to both military personnel and civilians working in Military Administration, with the State as the victim and the morality of the Administration as the legal object. This article examines the normalization of prevarication in the military environment, highlighting the growing trend of resolving such cases administratively, bypassing due legal process. This occurs when commanders and military authorities choose to judge prevarication cases within the scope of disciplinary violations, even when the seriousness of the acts would demand a more rigorous trial, as outlined in the Military Penal Code. Such a practice undermines trust in Military Administration and compromises justice. The article also addresses the causes and consequences of office bureaucracy in the military context, emphasizing how unfamiliarity with specific legal procedures can lead to delays in conducting investigations and making legal decisions. The lack of adequate resources, such as experts and equipment, can also encourage prevarication, as military authorities feel pressured to adopt alternative measures to avoid bureaucracy. Furthermore, the ambiguity in classifying behaviors as military crimes or disciplinary violations creates conflicts of competence and varying legal decisions, highlighting the need for a careful review of military laws and regulations. This research proposes concrete measures to combat prevarication in the military, including awareness and training, strengthening internal oversight, revising legislation, ensuring access to resources and experts, enhancing Military Justice, promoting transparency and accountability, fostering inter-institutional cooperation, and implementing monitoring and evaluation.