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
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:IBICT/oai:repositorio.ufrn.br:123456789/13985 |
| Date | 30 August 2013 |
| Creators | Oliveira, Sealtiel Duarte de |
| Contributors | CPF:70410070491, http://lattes.cnpq.br/0875921292981128, Nobre J?nior, Edilson Pereira, CPF:43045928404, http://lattes.cnpq.br/6219856215182127, Carvalho, Ivan Lira de, CPF:20062702491, http://lattes.cnpq.br/1400530873044311, Pereira, ?rick Wilson |
| Publisher | Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Programa de P?s-Gradua??o em Direito, UFRN, BR, Constitui??o e Garantias de Direitos |
| Source Sets | IBICT Brazilian ETDs |
| Language | Portuguese |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion, info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRN, instname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, instacron:UFRN |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.003 seconds