Size Does NOT Matter

This page is a translation of the original Portuguese text, provided for convenience. It deals with Brazilian law. If there is any discrepancy, the Portuguese version prevails. Read the original in Portuguese

Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (STF) has suspended the elimination of a candidate from the Tocantins Military Police entrance exam who had been excluded because, according to the examining board, she did not meet the minimum height requirement. In a preliminary injunction, Justice Cristiano Zanin reaffirmed that a height of 1.55 m for women satisfies the binding constitutional standard the Court has established.

Justice Cristiano Zanin’s Preliminary Injunction

In a preliminary injunction, the Supreme Federal Court ordered the immediate suspension of the elimination of a candidate from the Tocantins Military Police (PMTO) entrance exam. She was excluded solely for allegedly failing the minimum height requirement set out in public notice CFP/QPPM-2025/PMTO. Justice Cristiano Zanin issued the order in Constitutional Complaint (Reclamação Constitucional) No. 93.642, and it takes effect immediately against the public entity responsible for the exam.

The candidate is 1.55 m tall, exactly the minimum that the Court’s own case law recognizes as constitutionally appropriate for women in positions within the Unified Public Security System. Before her exclusion, she had passed the Physical Aptitude Test (TAF). According to the reasoning of the injunction, this shows she is fully fit to meet the demands of the job.

In his decision, Zanin pointed to signs that the Supreme Court’s binding precedents were being disregarded, especially Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) No. 5.044/DF and Theme 1.424 of general repercussion. He ordered the State of Tocantins to keep the candidate in the remaining stages of the exam, subject to the other requirements of the public notice.

The 1.55 m Standard and the Supreme Court’s Settled Case Law

Over the past several years, the case law of the Supreme Federal Court has settled on an objective criterion. A minimum height requirement in public security exams is constitutional, as long as it respects the parameters of Federal Law No. 12.705/2012, which governs admission to training courses for career military personnel in the Brazilian Army. Those parameters set 1.60 m for men and 1.55 m for women as minimums compatible with the job.

ADI 5.044/DF and, more recently, Theme 1.424 (established through RE 1.469.887) set a general repercussion holding on the issue, which reaches exams held by every level of government in Brazil. The reasoning behind these precedents is straightforward: public notices and state laws cannot set a minimum above the federal standard unless they show concretely that the job requires a different measure. Otherwise, they create a disproportionate barrier to public office.

As Complaint No. 93.642 observes, the administrative act that eliminated the candidate disregarded the rule set in these precedents. On a preliminary assessment, that amounts to noncompliance with a binding Supreme Court decision. Such noncompliance opens the way to a constitutional complaint under art. 102, I, “l”, of the Federal Constitution, a procedural tool meant to protect the Court’s jurisdiction and the authority of its rulings.

The injunction does not resolve the merits. Still pending are the request to declare unconstitutional the part of the state legislation that sets a height above the federal level, as well as the question of whether the candidate will be guaranteed a permanent place in the exam or a reserved position for future appointment.

Consequences for Candidates Eliminated by a Disproportionate Physical Criterion

The case reopens the debate over the legality of physical criteria with no objective proof that they relate to the job. Public notices that demand more than the federal standard of 1.60 m for men or 1.55 m for women must show concretely why the specific public function calls for a greater height. Without that justification, the requirement stops being legitimate technical screening and becomes an arbitrary barrier.

Candidates eliminated in similar circumstances have specific procedural tools available. When the elimination occurs during the exam and there is still time left to complete the remaining stages, a writ of mandamus (mandado de segurança) is the natural route. It rests on a clear and indisputable right (direito líquido e certo) that can be proven with documents. When the elimination defies a binding Supreme Court precedent, a constitutional complaint becomes available, as happened in the case discussed here.

Having passed the physical test and standing 1.55 m tall, the candidate met the minimum set by the Supreme Court itself.

The government often argues that height helps prevent risks in visible, on-the-street policing. The Supreme Court, however, has not accepted that argument as enough to override the federal standard. The Court distinguishes between objective requirements checked in the physical aptitude test, which measure real abilities (endurance, strength, agility), and generic physical-build criteria, which say little about a person’s actual fitness for the job.

Anyone in this situation should urgently gather three sets of documents: (a) the complete public notice and the elimination act, including the stated reasons for the exclusion; (b) proof of the measurement (the examining board’s report, ideally checked against an independent measurement); and (c) a record of having passed the earlier stages, especially the TAF, which shows full functional fitness.

Frequently Asked Questions

What minimum height does the STF recognize for public security exams?

The Court’s settled case law uses Federal Law No. 12.705/2012 as the standard. It sets 1.60 m for men and 1.55 m for women in training courses for career military personnel. State public notices cannot set a higher minimum without concrete proof of a specific functional need.

Does Justice Cristiano Zanin’s injunction cover other PMTO candidates, or does it apply only to one person?

The injunction was issued in the individual case of Complaint No. 93.642 and directly covers the candidate who filed it. The underlying holding, however, established by ADI 5.044 and Theme 1.424, is binding and applies to every public exam nationwide. Other candidates eliminated under the same criterion can invoke the same precedents in their own lawsuits.

Can candidates eliminated in past exams still challenge a height-based exclusion?

It depends on where the case stands procedurally. If the exam still has stages under way or the deadline to appeal is still open, a direct challenge is available. For exams that have already ended and where other candidates have been appointed, the issue becomes more complex. Depending on the case, it may involve a reserved position, retroactive appointment, or compensation. An individual review of the public notice and the elimination act is essential to defining the right strategy.

As informações deste artigo são de caráter informativo e não substituem consulta jurídica individualizada. Cada caso possui particularidades que exigem análise específica.