Submitted by Kelson (kelson@ucb.br) on 2016-08-04T19:02:35Z No. of bitstreams: 1 TulioMachadoVianaDissertacao2015.pdf: 987297 bytes, checksum: bdacb68ff6e4820d3368ef3bf49e7a8a (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-08-04T19:02:35Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 TulioMachadoVianaDissertacao2015.pdf: 987297 bytes, checksum: bdacb68ff6e4820d3368ef3bf49e7a8a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-12-05 / This work aims to discuss, from the analysis of the Rcl 4374/PE, the use of the constitutional complaint as a instrument processual able to promote the update of the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, which are firmed under abstract judicial review of the standards. It assumes that the Court???s decisions remain open to a constant process of reinterpretation, by itself, and the constitutional complaint can be the locus for assessment of those changes. It understands that the Constitution of a State, under the guise of being stable, can???t stifle in a way that fails to meet the interests of its people, leading to an institutional breakdown. At the same time, it cannot be subject to a process of deformation through constant changes in its text, destabilizing the legal relations. The question which arises, therefore, is the idea that the Constitution must be interpreted in a temporal context in which required the solution of a given case. Similarly, the judicial decisions which care about the relationship between the standards, whereas continuing legal relationship, aren???t precluded from being modified when there is a material change of context. So, when considering the occurrence of substantial changes in the factual relationships or general legal concept, this reinterpretative process can lead to an evolution in the jurisprudence set in an abstract control of the standards and result in an unconstitutionality, when it was considered constitutional before. Thus, it is proposed the understanding that the legal standards suffer a permanent process of updating of their meaning, which is why the study of the phenomenon of constitutional mutation and interpretation arises as being of great relevance for this update take place. The constitutional mutation is recognized as one of the most important contemporary discussions in Law, by providing a radical change in the interpretation of the Constitution, allowing its renewal, at the light of the social evolution, and offering meanings in line with the current reality / O presente trabalho discute, com base na an??lise da Rcl 4374/PE, o uso da reclama????o constitucional como um instrumento processual apto a promover a atualiza????o da jurisprud??ncia do Supremo Tribunal Federal firmada em sede controle abstrato de constitucionalidade das normas. Parte-se da premissa de que as decis??es da Corte permanecem abertas a um constante processo de reinterpreta????o pelo pr??prio Tribunal, e que a reclama????o constitucional pode ser o locus de aprecia????o dessas mudan??as. A Constitui????o de um Estado, sob o pretexto de ser est??vel, n??o pode se engessar de tal forma que deixe de atender aos interesses do seu povo, levando a uma ruptura institucional. Ao mesmo tempo, n??o pode estar sujeita a um processo de deforma????o por meio de constantes altera????es do seu texto, desestabilizando as rela????es jur??dicas. A quest??o que urge, desse modo, ?? a concep????o de que a Constitui????o deve ser interpretada no contexto temporal em que necess??ria a solu????o de uma determinada controv??rsia. No mesmo sentido, as decis??es judiciais que cuidem de rela????o entre normas, enquanto rela????o jur??dica continuada, n??o est??o impedidas de serem modificadas quando houver altera????o de contexto relevante. Assim, ao considerar a ocorr??ncia de mudan??as substanciais nas rela????es f??ticas ou da concep????o jur??dica geral, esse processo reinterpretativo pode conduzir a uma evolu????o da jurisprud??ncia firmada em controle abstrato de normas e resultar na declara????o de inconstitucionalidade de norma anteriormente declarada constitucional. Com isso, prop??e-se a compreens??o de que as normas jur??dicas sofrem um processo de atualiza????o permanente dos seus significados, raz??o pela qual o estudo do fen??meno da muta????o constitucional e da intepreta????o emerge como sendo de grande relev??ncia para que essa atualiza????o ocorra. Reconhece a muta????o constitucional como uma das discuss??es contempor??neas mais importantes do direito por ensejar uma mudan??a radical na interpreta????o da Constitui????o, permitindo sua renova????o ?? luz da evolu????o social e oferecendo-lhe significados consent??neos com a realidade atual

Made available in DSpace on 2014-12-17T14:27:27Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 SealtielDO_DISSERT.pdf: 3399268 bytes, checksum: 1a83565dd029a077e85e5685d4a39607 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-08-30 / The independence of the United States and the revolutions that emerged in Europe in the eighteenth century led to the birth of the written constitution, with a mission to limit the power of the State and to ensure fundamental rights to citizens. Thus, the Constitution has become the norm and ultimate founding of the State. Because of this superiority felt the need to protect her, emerging from that constitutional jurisdiction, taking control of constitutionality of provisions his main instrument. In Brazil, the constitutionality control began with the Constitution of 1891, when "imported" the American model, which is named after incidental diffuse model of judicial review. Indeed, allowed that any judge or court could declare the unconstitutionality of the law or normative act in a concrete case. However, the Brazilian Constituent did not bring the U.S. Institute of stare decisis, by which the precedents of higher courts eventually link the below. Because of this lack, each tribunal Brazilian freely decide about the constitutionality of a rule, so that the decision took effect only between the parties to the dispute. This prompted the emergence of conflicting decisions between judicantes organs, which ultimately undermine legal certainty and the image of the judiciary. As a solution to the problem, was incorporated from the 1934 Constitution to rule that the Senate would suspend the law declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. With the introduction of abstract control of constitutionality, since 1965, the Supreme Court went on to also have the power to declare the invalidity of the provision unconstitutional, effectively against all without the need for the participation of the Senate. However, it remained the view that in case the Supreme Court declared the unconstitutionality of the fuzzy control law by the Senate would continue with the competence to suspend the law unconstitutional, thus the decision of the Praetorium Exalted restricted parties. The 1988 Constitution strengthened the abstract control expanding legitimized the Declaratory Action of Unconstitutionality and creating new mechanisms of abstract control. Adding to this, the Constitutional Amendment. No. 45/2004 brought the requirement of general repercussion and created the Office of Binding Precedent, both to be applied by the Supreme Court judgments in individual cases, thus causing an approximation between the control abstract and concrete constitutional. Saw themselves so that the Supreme Court, to be the guardian of the Constitution, its action should be directed to the trial of issues of public interest. In this new reality, it becomes more necessary the participation of the Senate to the law declared unconstitutional in fuzzy control by the Supreme Court can reach everyone, because such an interpretation has become obsolete. So, to adapt it to this reality, such a rule must be read in the sense that the Senate give publicity to the law declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, since mutated constitutional / A independ?ncia dos Estados Unidos e as revolu??es surgidas na Europa no s?culo XVIII propiciaram o nascimento da Constitui??o escrita, com a miss?o de limitar o poder do Estado e assegurar direitos fundamentais aos cidad?os. Assim, a Constitui??o tornou-se a norma fundante e suprema do Estado. Em raz?o dessa superioridade sentiu-se a necessidade de proteg?-la, surgindo a partir da? a jurisdi??o constitucional, tendo no controle de constitucionalidade de normas o seu principal instrumento. No Brasil, o controle de constitucionalidade iniciou-se com a Constitui??o de 1891, quando se importou o modelo americano, que recebeu o nome de modelo difuso incidental de controle de constitucionalidade. Com efeito, permitiu-se que qualquer juiz ou tribunal poderia declarar a inconstitucionalidade de lei ou ato normativo em um caso concreto. Entretanto, o constituinte brasileiro n?o trouxe dos Estados Unidos o instituto do stare decisis, atrav?s do qual os precedentes dos ?rg?os judiciais superiores acabam por vincular os inferiores. Em raz?o dessa aus?ncia, cada juiz ou tribunal brasileiro decidia livremente a respeito da constitucionalidade de norma, de tal maneira que a decis?o s? produzia efeitos entre as parte do lit?gio. Isso levou o surgimento de decis?es contradit?rias entre os ?rg?os judicantes, o que acabou por abalar a seguran?a jur?dica e a imagem do Judici?rio. Como sa?da para o problema, incorporou-se a partir da Constitui??o de 1934 a regra segundo a qual o Senado poderia suspender a lei declarada inconstitucional pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal. Com a introdu??o do controle abstrato de constitucionalidade, a partir de 1965, o Supremo Tribunal Federal passou a ter, tamb?m, o poder de declarar a invalidade da norma inconstitucional, com efic?cia contra todos, sem a necessidade de participa??o do Senado. Por?m, permaneceu a concep??o de que na hip?tese de o Supremo Tribunal Federal declarar a inconstitucionalidade de lei atrav?s do controle difuso o Senado continuaria com a compet?ncia de suspender a lei inconstitucional, ficando a decis?o do Pret?rio Excelso restrito ?s partes. A Constitui??o de 1988 fortaleceu o controle abstrato ampliando os legitimados da A??o Direta de Inconstitucionalidade e criando novos mecanismos de controle abstrato. Somando-se a isso, a Emenda Constitucional n.? 45/2004 trouxe o requisito da repercuss?o geral e introduziu o instituto da S?mula Vinculante, ambos para serem aplicados pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal nos julgamentos dos casos concretos, provocando consequentemente uma aproxima??o entre os controles abstrato e concreto de constitucionalidade. Enxergou-se destarte que o Supremo Tribunal Federal, como guardi?o da Constitui??o, deveria ter a sua atua??o pautada para o julgamento de quest?es de interesse p?blico. Nesta nova realidade ? desnecess?ria a participa??o do Senado para que a lei declarada inconstitucional no controle difuso pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal possa alcan?ar a todos, pois, tal interpreta??o tornou-se obsoleta. Por conseguinte, para adequ?-la a essa realidade, tal regra deve ser lida no sentido de que o Senado dar? publicidade ? lei declarada inconstitucional pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal, vez que sofreu muta??o constitucional