Submitted by Automa??o e Estat?stica (sst@bczm.ufrn.br) on 2017-02-02T13:18:35Z No. of bitstreams: 1 JoneFagnerRafaelMaciel_DISSERT.pdf: 1461066 bytes, checksum: 68bbd9149eafe6ac15ac737811f904dd (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Arlan Eloi Leite Silva (eloihistoriador@yahoo.com.br) on 2017-02-08T17:17:02Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 JoneFagnerRafaelMaciel_DISSERT.pdf: 1461066 bytes, checksum: 68bbd9149eafe6ac15ac737811f904dd (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-02-08T17:17:02Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 JoneFagnerRafaelMaciel_DISSERT.pdf: 1461066 bytes, checksum: 68bbd9149eafe6ac15ac737811f904dd (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-08-15 / A conforma??o constitucional da Advocacia de Estado, mediante a an?lise dos artigos 131 e 132 da Constitui??o Federal, e, a partir dela, a verifica??o da possibilidade de promover a defesa de agentes p?blicos, constituem o objeto do estudo que se apresenta. A an?lise a ser empreendida se concentrar? na especifica??o precisa do n?cleo de compet?ncias outorgadas ? Advocacia de Estado, levando em considera??o a configura??o promovida pelo constituinte, que a autonomizou frente aos Poderes Republicanos listados no artigo 2? CF ao inseri-la em cap?tulo pr?prio, e as repercuss?es decorrentes dessa op??o quando do ato fundante da nova ordem jur?dico-constitucional. Procurar-se-? explicitar, dessa conforma??o normativo-estruturante da Advocacia de Estado, o v?nculo que a interseciona com as demais Fun??es Essenciais ? Justi?a, e o que a particulariza, com vistas a saber o grau de autonomia que se lhe ? deferido, bem como os limites de sua atua??o final?stica, com base no exame das compet?ncias contenciosas (representa??o judicial e extrajudicial) e n?o contenciosas (consultaria e assessoramento), e as repercuss?es jur?dicas decorrentes da assistematicidade do constituinte quando dela especificamente tratou. Essas bases permitir?o enveredarmos sobre os limites do legislador, seja o constituinte reformador, seja o infraconstitucional, na tarefa de conforma??o organizacional da Advocacia de Estado, mormente quando procure estender sua compet?ncia para al?m daquelas extra?veis do art. 131, caput, e 132, da Constitui??o Federal, com vistas a discorrermos sobre a inconstitucionalidade, formal e material, da outorga da representa??o judicial ou extrajudicial de agentes p?blicos, como realizado pela Advocacia-Geral da Uni?o por interm?dio do art. 22 da Lei n. 9.028/95. A an?lise dessa inconstitucionalidade fundar-se-?, primordialmente, na assun??o pessoal de responsabilidade pelos agentes p?blicos, com base nas prescri??es que exsurgem do princ?pio republicano, contido no art. 1?, caput, da Constitui??o Federal. / The constitutional conformation of State Advocacy analyzed in Articles 131 and 132 of Federal Constitution and, based on it, the confirmation of prospect to promote the defense of public officials are the object of study presented herein. The undertaken analysis will focus on the specification of core competencies conferred to State Advocacy, taking into account the configuration promoted by the constitutional lawmaker that granted to it the autonomy related to Republican Powers described in FC Article 2nd as it was included in a separate chapter, and the repercussions that follow this option in the event of the new Brazilian legal and constitutional order founding act. We sought to explain, considering this normative-structural conformation of State Advocacy, the linkage that intersects it with other Justice Essential Functions and with what makes it specific, in order to know the degree of autonomy that is granted to it, and the limits of its end performance based on the examination of contentious competencies (judicial and extrajudicial representation) and non-contentious (consulting and advisory services), and the legal consequences arising from the constitutional lawmaker lack of systematicity when specifically dealt with it. These bases will allow us to step into the lawmaker?s limits, be it a reformer constitutional lawmaker or an infra-constitutional one, aimed at the organizational task of State Advocacy, especially when trying to understand its competence beyond those drawn out from FC Art. 131, caput, and 132, in order to discourse about the unconstitutionality of granting public officers with judicial or extrajudicial representation, as carried out by the Federal Advocacy General's Office through Art. 22 of the 9.028/95 Act. The analysis of unconstitutionality will be based on two aspects: the personal assumption of responsibility by public officials and the provisions of the Republican Principle contained in CF Art. 1?.