Submitted by Automa??o e Estat?stica (sst@bczm.ufrn.br) on 2017-02-02T13:18:35Z No. of bitstreams: 1 MarcellaPereiraDaNobrega_DISSERT.pdf: 1705829 bytes, checksum: 7f2dd2544978fc44259e8ce86a65c8c5 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Arlan Eloi Leite Silva (eloihistoriador@yahoo.com.br) on 2017-02-08T17:29:13Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 MarcellaPereiraDaNobrega_DISSERT.pdf: 1705829 bytes, checksum: 7f2dd2544978fc44259e8ce86a65c8c5 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-02-08T17:29:13Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 MarcellaPereiraDaNobrega_DISSERT.pdf: 1705829 bytes, checksum: 7f2dd2544978fc44259e8ce86a65c8c5 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-08-19 / O Minist?rio P?blico recebeu um delineamento constitucional muito peculiar pela Constitui??o Federal de 1988 como institui??o de controle e agente de transforma??es sociais, de maneira que as suas amplas miss?es devem se harmonizar com esse perfil constitucional. Uma inquieta??o causada pela atua??o tradicional e pouco refletida do Minist?rio P?blico como ?rg?o agente na defesa de direitos individuais indispon?veis foi a v?lvula propulsora para este trabalho. A pesquisa desenvolvida tem por objetivo analisar a atua??o do Minist?rio P?blico como ?rg?o agente na defesa de direitos individuais indispon?veis em busca de uma interpreta??o que compatibilize essa miss?o com o seu perfil constitucional na Constitui??o Federal de 1988. Para tanto adota como metodologia a pesquisa bibliogr?fica, incluindo, legisla??o, doutrina e decis?es judiciais. O estudo apresenta o percurso hist?rico transposto pelo Minist?rio P?blico at? os dias atuais e os influxos do modelo estatal adotado na defini??o do seu perfil e da sua voca??o na atual ordem constitucional. Destaca o Minist?rio P?blico como garantia institucional e institui??o integrante do sistema de justi?a, ressaltando a relev?ncia da sua atua??o como ?rg?o de controle e como ?rg?o agente de transforma??es sociais. Resgata a sua tradicional atua??o como ?rg?o agente na defesa de direitos individuais indispon?veis na primeira Lei Org?nica Nacional do Minist?rio P?blico Estadual de 1981. Enfatiza a institucionaliza??o da Defensoria P?blica apenas em 1988 e destaca o seu genu?no perfil constitucional e voca??o ? defesa do indiv?duo. Num cotejo entre as duas institui??es e os respectivos perfis constitucionais, discute sobreposi??o de atua??es entre elas na defesa de direitos individuais indispon?veis, para concluir que a atua??o do Minist?rio P?blico como ?rg?o agente na defesa de direitos individuais indispon?veis ? residual e que somente se compatibiliza com o seu perfil constitucional de agente de controle e de transforma??es sociais quando inexistir ou for ineficaz a Defensoria P?blica ou a advocacia privada. / The Public Prosecution Service received a peculiar and solid design by the Federal Constitution of 1988 as a control institution and social change agent, in a way that the constitutional tasks harmonize with this constitutional profile. A concern caused by the traditional and little reflected operation of the Public Prosecution Service as the entity agent in defense unalienable individual rights was the driving valve for this work. Thus, the developed research aims to analyze the performance of the Public Prosecution Service as the agent entity in defense of unalienable individual rights in search for an interpretation that achieves compatibility with this mission and its constitutional profile in the Federal Constitution of 1988. For this purpose it adopts as methodology bibliographic research, including legislation, doctrine and judicial decisions. The study, then, presents a historic route transposed by the Public Prosecution Service until the present day and the outlines of the state model adopted in their profile defining and their calling in the current constitutional order. It highlights the Public Prosecution Service as a guarantee institution and institution integrant of the justice system, giving emphasis to the importance of its performance as a control agency and as a social change agent. It recovers its traditional performance as agent in defense of unalienable individual rights in the first National Organic Law of the State Prosecutor of 1981. It emphasizes the institutionalization of the Public Defender occurred only in 1988 and highlights their genuine constitutional profile and vocation to the defense of the individual. In a comparison between the two institutions and their respective constitutional profiles, it discusses overlapping of their performances in defense of unalienable individual rights, to conclude that the actions of the Public Prosecution Service as agent in defense of unalienable individual rights is residual and that only harmonizes with its constitutional profile of control and social change agent when the Public Defender or private law do not exist or be ineffective.