THE OBSTACLES TO THE EXERCISE OF CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION AND THE WAY GIVEN BY THE PUBLIC HEARINGS
Abstract
The present paper analyses the new constitutionalism`s contribution to the judicial review realized by the Federal Supreme Court (STF), from two of its de essential features: the normative force of the constitutional text and the law`s constitutionalization. Starting from the new constitutionalism`s theory explored by Luís Roberto Barroso, investigated the difficulties, of scientific and political feature, that are present in judicial review as consequences of the Constitution`s reinforcement, that makes the Constitution not only a political document, but also an important legal instrument. The search is qualitative and resorts of some punctual judgements of STF, marked by the convocation of public hearings, in order to analyse how this mechanism serves to the Court`s Justices, since they are increasingly deciding about matters of which they are not constantly aware. Besides evaluate the public hearings as a mechanism that attempts to overcome the lack of scientific knowledge about some themes, it is investigated, at the same way, how they are called, with the intention to surmount political obstacles to be trespassed, especially in processes that have big repercussions, in wich it is questioned if the Federal Supreme Court, as the house of the Judiciary, would have legitimacy to decide.
Downloads
References
BARROSO, Luís Roberto. A razão sem voto: o Supremo Tribunal Federal e o governo da maioria. Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas, v. 5, 2015, p. 23-50.
. Contramajoritário, representativo e iluminista: os papéis das Cortes Constitucionais nas democracias contemporâneas.
. Neoconstitucionalismo e constitucionalização do direito (o triunfo tardio do direito constitucional no Brasil). Revista de Direito Administrativo, v. 240, 2005, p. 1-42.
BOLZAN DE MORAIS, Jose Luis; SALDANHA, Jânia Maria Lopes; ESPÍNDOLA, Ângela Araújo da Silveira. Por uma tradução democrática do direito: jurisdição constitucional e participação cidadã. In: COUTINHO, Jacinto Miranda; FRAGALE, Roberto; LOBÃO, Ronaldo (Org.). Constituição e ativismo judicial: limites e possibilidades da norma constitucional e da decisão judicial. Rio de Janeiro: Lumen Juris, 2011, p. 197-219.
BRASIL. Lei nº 9.868, de 10 de novembro de 1999. Disponível em:
. Supremo Tribunal Federal. Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade n.4815. Relatora: Ministra Cármen Lúcia. Disponível em:
. Supremo Tribunal Federal. Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental n.101. Relatora: Ministra Cármen Lúcia. Disponível em:
. Supremo Tribunal Federal. Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental n.54. Relator: Ministro Marco Aurélio. Disponível em:
CAMARGO, Margarida Maria Lacombe. Os fatos legislativos na jurisdição constitucional. In: CONGRESO DE FILOSOFÍA DEL DERECHO PARA EL MUNDO LATINO, 1., 2016, Alicante: Universidad de Alicante, Espanha.
CAMARGO, Margarida; TAVARES, Rodrigo. As várias faces do neocosntitucionalismo. In: QUARESMA, Regina; OLIVEIRA, Maria Lúcia de Paula; OLIVEIRA, Farlei Martins Riccio de (Org.). Neoconstitucionalismo. Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2009, p. 356-369.
CARBONELL, Miguel (Org.). Neoconstitucionalismo (s). 4 ed. Madrid: Editorial Trotta, 2009.
DWORKIN, Ronald. Levando os direitos a sério. 1 ed., São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2002.
MASSADAS, Júlia; SANTOS, Fabiana de Almeida Maia; HERDY, Rachel . A natureza ambivalente das audiências públicas no Supremo Tribunal Federal. In: VIEIRA, José Ribas; CAMARGO, Margarida Maria Lacombe; VALLE, Vanice Regina Lírio do; GOUVÊA, Carina Barbosa; SANTOS, Fabiana de Almeida Maia; LEGALE, Siddharta (Org.). Diálogos constitucionais e as relações entre os Poderes: VI Fórum de Grupos de Pesquisa em Direito Constitucional e Teoria do Direito. 1ed, v. 1, Rio de Janeiro: Freitas Bastos Editora, 2016, p. 326-347.
MENDES, Gilmar Ferreira. Controle de constitucionalidade: aspectos jurídicos e políticos. São Paulo: Saraiva, 1990.
PEREIRA, Jane Reis Gonçalves. O Judiciário como impulsionador dos direitos fundamentais: entre fraquezas e possibilidades. Revista da Faculdade de Direito UERJ, n. 29, 2016, p. 127-157.
. Representação democrática do Judiciário: reflexões preliminares sobre os riscos e dilemas de uma ideia em ascensão. Revista Juris Poiesis, n. 17, 2014, p. 343- 359.
REALE, Miguel. Lições preliminares de direito. São Paulo: Editora Saraiva, 1999.
SARMENTO, Daniel. O neoconstitucionalismo no Brasil: riscos e possibilidades. In: SARMENTO, Daniel. (Org.). Filosofia e teoria constitucional contemporânea. Rio de Janeiro: Lumen Juris, 2009, p. 113-146.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work is simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which allows sharing the work with recognition of its authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are authorized to assume additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (eg, publishing in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
The author declares to be responsible for the originality, uniqueness and currency of the article content, by means of complete references to all consulted sources.
Each author grants to the LexCult Journal permission to evaluate, normalize, edit and publish the submitted article, in an unprecedented way.
Plagiarism cases and self plagiarism will not be accepted under no circumstances. The plagiarist will be prohibited to publish in LexCult Journal for 5 years.
The copy, in full or to some extent, of an article published in LexCult Journal will be allowed as long as the source (author and Journal) is informed, being forbidden the commercial use and the production and distribution of derivative works. In case the exclusivity clause is broken, the submission will be filed and the author will be prohibited to publish in LexCult Journal for 5 years, without bringing any civil actions provided by national law.
The author is aware that:
a) Submissions may be rejected if the journal's Editorial Board, responsible for evaluation and article selection, does not consider it pertinent for publication, whatever may be the well-justified reasons;
b) Editors reserve the right to modify the submitted manuscript - without any content alteration - in view of its normalization and adaptation to the publication norms.
