It is not illegal for the Supreme Court to acquire vehicles with security measures for its members. The Judiciary is an autonomous constitutional body, with powers to manage its budget and guarantee the integrity of those who perform functions of high institutional relevance. In a country with persistent levels of violence, the protection of senior officials is, in itself, a justifiable measure, not a privilege.
The problem is not in the existence of the armor or the purchase of the trucks. The problem is in the context, the form and the absence of an anticipated and convincing institutional narrative. The information about the acquisition of the vehicles was known through a journalistic note, not through proactive communication from the Judiciary itself.
There was no clear institutional explanation of the total cost, the decision criteria, the alternatives evaluated, or the budgetary impact of the acquisition. This information gap was enough to trigger a perception of opacity and contradiction with the austerity discourses that have accompanied the new integration of the Court.
In institutional policy, perceptions matter as much as legal norms. The Supreme Court is not just another administrative body. It is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality, the guarantor of fundamental rights and must be one of the main counterweights to political power. His authority is not sustained solely by his rulings, but by the public trust he inspires. When the Court appears disconnected from the social climate, its legitimacy is eroded, even if it acts within the legal framework.
