Made available in DSpace on 2014-12-17T14:27:16Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ValeriaMLR_DISSERT.pdf: 729931 bytes, checksum: 0e394caf067ef7b86575e19d833c0a17 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011-03-11 / Brazil since its first republican constitution has adopted systems of laws control. The review activity was given to three state powers or functions state, Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. However, it appears that in the country along the constitutional history, has stood considerably the jurisdictional control of the most important control. Initially, back in 1891, Brazil adopted the jurisdictional control of diffuse from U.S, whose role in monitoring of standards is delivered to all organs of the judiciary, which may face a case, put on trial, ascertain whether or not the possibility of applying a law, removing its impact in case of unconstitutionality. In 1969, entered in the second legal model of judicial review, the concentrated control of constitutionality, whose inspiration comes from the positivist theory of Hans Kelsen, and was adopted by the Austrian Constitution of 1920. According to the abstract control the supervision of law is given to a Court or Constitutional Court, responsible for the analysis of the legal constitutionality independent of its application to a specific case. In Brazil the role of concentrated control was handed over exclusively to the Supreme Court, which serves as the Constitutional Court, which accumulates that function with other constitutionally provided jurisdiction. Throughout this period, from 1891 until today, Brazil has maintained a dual system of judicial control of legal constitutionality, where they coexist and harmonize the diffuse control exercised by any organ of the Judiciary, and concentrated control of competence the Supreme Court. However, one must recognize that with the advent of the Federal Constitution of 1988, the concentrated control has emerged on the national stage due to two important factors: the expansion of the legal capacity to sue and the inclusion of other ways control, besides the already known Direct Claim of Unconstitutionality. This concentrated control and projection of the Supreme Court s attempt to become a true constitutional court, led to a relative weakening of diffuse control even when performed by the Brazilian Constitutional Court. In order to become a true constitutional court, all decisions handed down by the Supreme in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction should have the same weight and the same measure, or at least bring improvement to similar effects, once is the responsible for the final word when it comes to constitutional interpretation. Thus, the writs of certiorari and stare decisis were responsible for profound changes in the diffuse control, allowing the Supreme Court can strengthen its decisions even in the diffuse control. These two institutions have substantially changed the legal status of diffuse control, allowing an extension of the effects of decisions handed down by the Supreme Court, so that you can no longer be said that the effects of this control to restrict the disputing parties in the process / O Brasil desde a sua primeira constitui??o republicana tem adotado sistemas de controle de constitucionalidade das normas. Verifica-se que esta tarefa de fiscaliza??o normativa foi entregue aos tr?s poderes ou fun??es estatais, Executivo, Legislativo e Judici?rio. Entretanto, verifica-se que no pa?s, ao longo da hist?ria constitucional, tem se destacado consideravelmente o controle jurisdicional de constitucionalidade das leis. Inicialmente, j? em 1891, foi adotado o controle jurisdicional difuso ou concreto, de origem norte-americana, cuja fun??o de fiscaliza??o das normas foi entregue a todos os ?rg?os do Poder Judici?rio, os quais poder?o diante de um caso concreto, posto a julgamento, verificarem ou n?o a possibilidade de aplica??o de uma norma, afastando sua incid?ncia em caso de inconstitucionalidade. Em 1969, entrou definitivamente no ordenamento jur?dico o segundo modelo de fiscaliza??o jurisdicional, o controle de constitucionalidade concentrado ou abstrato, cuja inspira??o adv?m da teoria positivista de Hans Kelsen, e foi adotado pela Constitui??o Austr?aca de 1920. Segundo o controle abstrato a fiscaliza??o ? entregue a um Tribunal ou Corte Constitucional respons?vel pela an?lise da norma em tese, independente de sua aplica??o a um caso espec?fico. No Brasil a fun??o do controle concentrado foi entregue com exclusividade ao Supremo Tribunal Federal, que exerce a fun??o de Tribunal Constitucional, que acumula referida fun??o com outras compet?ncias jurisdicionais constitucionalmente previstas. Durante todo esse per?odo, de 1891 at? os dias atuais, o Brasil tem mantido um sistema misto de controle jurisdicional de constitucionalidade das normas, onde convivem e se harmonizam o controle difuso, exercido por qualquer ?rg?o do Poder Judici?rio, e o controle concentrado, de compet?ncia do Supremo Tribunal Federal. Por?m, for?oso ? reconhecer, que com o advento da carta de 1988, o controle concentrado ganhou proje??o e destaque no cen?rio nacional, por dois importantes fatores: a amplia??o do rol de legitimados ativos e a inclus?o de outros mecanismos de controle, al?m da j? conhecida A??o Direta de Inconstitucionalidade. Esta proje??o do controle concentrado e a tentativa do Supremo Tribunal de se tornar uma verdadeira corte constitucional, levaram a um relativo enfraquecimento do controle difuso mesmo quando realizado pelo Tribunal Constitucional brasileiro. Ocorre que para se tornar uma verdadeira corte constitucional, todas as decis?es prolatadas pelo Supremo no exerc?cio da jurisdi??o constitucional devem ter o mesmo peso e a mesma medida, ou pelo menos surtirem efeitos an?logos, haja vista ser o respons?vel pela ?ltima palavra em se tratando de interpreta??o constitucional. Desta forma, a repercuss?o geral e a s?mula vinculante foram respons?veis por profundas transforma??es no controle difuso, permitindo que o Supremo Tribunal Federal possa fortalecer suas decis?es mesmo em sede de controle concreto. Estes dois institutos modificaram substancialmente a natureza jur?dica do controle difuso, permitindo um alargamento dos efeitos das decis?es prolatadas pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal, de modo que j? n?o se poder? mais afirmar que os efeitos deste controle se restrinjam as partes litigantes do processo