TSE Maintains R$60,000 Fine Against Pablo Muribeca for Misinformation in Serra Mayoral Race
The Superior Electoral Court (TSE) has upheld a R$60,000 fine against Pablo Muribeca (Republicans), the defeated candidate in the 2024 mayoral election in Serra, Espírito Santo, for disseminating decontextualized content about his opponent’s government plan. The penalty, originally imposed by the Regional Electoral Court of Espírito Santo (TRE-ES), was set at R$30,000 for each social network used—Instagram and Facebook—totaling R$60,000. The case centered on a post by Muribeca that claimed his opponent Weverson Meireles (PDT) had included in his government plan the “promotion of sexual and gender diversity.” The original document, however, called for the promotion of “respect for sexual and gender diversity.” The suppression of the word “respect” fundamentally altered the meaning of the proposal, leading the courts to conclude that the post constituted irregular electoral propaganda by misinformation, in violation of Article 57-D of Law 9.504/1997. The TSE’s decision, delivered by Minister Estela Aranha, reinforced that electoral integrity requires more than technical compliance; it demands that candidates refrain from distorting facts in ways capable of misleading voters.
The controversy began during the intense final stretch of the 2024 municipal campaign in Serra, a municipality in Greater Vitória with a large electorate. Muribeca, seeking to differentiate himself from his rival, shared on his official social media channels a critical post highlighting what appeared to be a radical proposal in Meireles’ government plan. The post suggested that the PDT candidate intended to actively promote sexual and gender diversity among the population, a message that, in the context of a conservatively leaning electorate, could be seen as controversial or even alarming. However, the actual government plan submitted to the Electoral Court and made public by the campaign contained a more nuanced and rights-based wording: “promotion of respect for sexual and gender diversity.” This phrasing, in line with constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination, did not call for any specific behavioral promotion, but rather for a respectful environment for all citizens. By removing the term “respect,” Muribeca’s team transformed a defensive, tolerance-oriented policy into an assertive and potentially polarizing agenda. The manipulation, though small in textual terms, was deemed substantial in its communicative effect, capable of distorting public perception and influencing voter decisions.
When the case first reached TRE-ES, the regional court examined the evidence and found that Muribeca had indeed committed an electoral infraction. The court noted that the candidate had a duty to present his opponent’s proposals faithfully, especially when intending to criticize them. While political debate allows for opinion, irony, and strong criticism, it does not permit the deliberate falsification or substantial alteration of verifiable facts. The omitted word was not a mere stylistic nuance; it was a semantic core that changed the proposal from one of respect—a universally acceptable civic value—to one of active promotion, which might be interpreted as an ideological imposition. The regional court also considered the context of the 2024 elections, marked by heightened polarization and the rapid spread of viral content. In such an environment, a simple screenshot or short video could reach thousands of voters within minutes, often without opportunities for correction or clarification. Therefore, the court applied the maximum fine allowed per violation: R$30,000 for each of the two social networks where the post was published. The total of R$60,000 was intended to serve both as a punitive and deterrent measure.
Muribeca’s defense appealed to the TSE, arguing that the regional court had failed to analyze the alleged irrelevance of the omitted word. According to the defense, the criticism was essentially about the inclusion of diversity-related proposals in the government plan, and the absence of the word “respect” did not alter the core objection. The defense also argued that the conduct lacked the seriousness necessary to justify a maximum penalty, suggesting that the fine was disproportionate when compared to other electoral violations. Furthermore, the defense invoked broad freedom of expression and political criticism, asserting that candidates should be allowed to interpret and attack their opponents’ platforms without excessive judicial intervention. They claimed that the episode was a legitimate political dispute, not an act of disinformation. However, these arguments did not convince the TSE rapporteur, Minister Estela Aranha. In her detailed vote, she rejected each point. She noted that the regional court had sufficiently examined the impact of the omission, concluding that it substantially changed the meaning. The minister also underscored that the protection of freedom of expression, while fundamental, does not cover intentional or reckless distortions that undermine informed voting. The right to criticize cannot be confused with the right to mislead.
Minister Aranha’s vote reinforced a key legal principle in Brazilian electoral law: misinformation in campaign content is treated with particular severity because it attacks the very foundation of democratic choice. She emphasized that the electorate has the right to receive truthful information about candidates’ proposals in order to form independent judgments. When a candidate deliberately modifies an opponent’s official document, the damage goes beyond the individual opponent; it degrades public trust in the electoral process. The minister also addressed the proportionality of the fine. She pointed out that the law provides for a range of penalties, and the maximum value is reserved for cases where the conduct is especially damaging or the offender shows a high degree of culpability. In this case, the misinformation was disseminated by a candidate, not just by an anonymous supporter, which increased its credibility and potential reach. Additionally, the use of two major social media platforms—Instagram and Facebook—amplified the audience. The court considered the economic capacity of the candidate and the absence of any showing that he could not pay the fine. The recurrence criterion was also evaluated: although Muribeca did not have a previous electoral conviction, the deliberate nature of the act and the strategic targeting of a controversial topic indicated a calculated attempt to use misinformation as a campaign tool.
In final analysis, the TSE’s decision sends a clear message to all candidates and political actors: electoral justice is increasingly vigilant against the manipulation of information, even when the manipulation appears superficially minor. The omission of a single word, in the court’s view, was not a technicality but a meaningful alteration that could affect the outcome of an election. The fine of R$60,000, though significant, was considered appropriate to reflect the seriousness of the offense and to deter similar behavior in future elections. The ruling also affirmed the importance of government plans as public documents of contractual nature between candidates and voters. These documents are not mere marketing pieces; they are official commitments that form the basis for electoral evaluation. Consequently, any attack on an opponent’s plan must accurately represent its content. While the case involved a municipal election, its principles apply to all levels of the Brazilian electoral system. As misinformation and digital manipulation continue to evolve, the judiciary’s role in protecting electoral truth becomes ever more crucial. The decision by Minister Estela Aranha and the TSE serves as a robust precedent, demonstrating that freedom of expression in elections is not unlimited, and that candidates who choose to cross the line into disinformation will face the full weight of electoral law. Ultimately, the case underscores a fundamental democratic value: the integrity of the electoral process depends on the honesty of those who participate in it.