The Test of Proportionality in the Constitutional Court of Peru and the Supreme Federal Court
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21527/2317-5389.2023.22.13607Keywords:
Proportionality, Aplicability, Comparative Law, Jurisprudence, Peruvian Constitutional CourtAbstract
The purpose of this investigation is to examine the application of the proportionality test by the Constitutional Court of Peru and the Supreme Federal Court. The proportionality test is a central tool in the jurisdiction of the democratic constitutional Rule of Law. In a constitution with a catalog of fundamental rights, only justified restrictions based on the proportionality test are allowed. The problem of applying the proportionality test is central, justifying examining how constitutional courts employ this methodological tool. Analysis of decisions by the Constitutional Court of Peru shows application of the standard model, widely disseminated, configured in the subtests of the legitimacy of the end, adequacy, necessity and proportionality in the strict sense. Analysis of decisions of the Supreme Federal Court shows the prevalence of indistinct and not rigorous application of a general and broad idea of proportionality, more like a rhetorical-argumentative topoi, sometimes identified with reasonability or weighting. In some decisions, the application of the proportionality test in the configuration of the standard model can be tracked. In comparison, the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Peru are superior to those of the Supreme Federal Court as to the quality of the reasoning for the application of the proportionality test. Comparative bibliographic research and comparative case analyze. Hypothetical deductive method.
References
ÁFRICA DO SUL. Government of the Republic of South Africa v. Grootboom, SA 46 (CC). 2001.
ALEMANHA, Tribunal Constitucional Federal, 2 BVR 1005, 2020.
ALEXY, Robert. Theorie der Grundrecht. Frankfurt am Main: Surkamp, 1994.
ALEXY, Robert. Constitucionalismo discursivo. Tradução Luis Afonso Heck. Porto Alegre: Livraria do Advogado, 2007.
BARRERA, Eloy Espinosa-Saldaña. Informe sobre el principio o test de proporcionalidad en la Jurisprudencia del Tribunal Constitucional peruano. European Commission for Democracy through Law, p. 1-16, 2019.
BRASIL, Lei Complementar 135/2010, Brasília, Presidência da República, 2010. Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/lcp/lcp135.htm
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. HC 82424. 2004. Disponível em: https://jurisprudencia.stf.jus.br/pages/search/sjur96610/false. Acesso em: 19 abr. 2023.
BRASIL, Constituição Federal da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988. Brasília: Presidência da República, 2016.
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. ADC 29. 2012. Disponível em: https://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=TP&docID=2243342. Acesso em: 19 abr. 2023.
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. ADI 5136. 2014. Disponível em: https://jurisprudencia.stf.jus.br/pages/search/sjur282430/false. Acesso em: 19 abr. 2023.
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. REXT 601314. 2016. Disponível em: https://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=TP&docID=11668355. Acesso em: 19 abr. 2023.
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. ADI 907. 2017. Disponível em: https://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=TP&docID=14113979. Acesso em: 19 abr. 2023.
CASTILLO-CÓRDOVA, Luis. El princípio de proporcionalidad em la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Constitucional Peruano. Repositório Institucional PIRHUA, Universidad de Piura, p. 1-22, 2005.
COHEN-ELIYA, Moshe; PORAT, Iddo. Proportionality and Constitutional Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
COHEN-ELIYA, Moshe; PORAT, Iddo. The administrative origins of constitutional rights and global constitutionalism. In: JACKSON, Vicki C.; TUSHNET, Mark (ed.). Proportionality. New frontiers, new challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. p. 103-129.
CRAIG, Paul. Proportionality, rationality and review. New Zealand Law Review, Auckland, p. 265-302, 2010.
DYZENHAUS, David. Proportionality and deference and in a culture of justification. In: HUSCROFT, Grant; MILLER, Bradley W.; WEBBER, Gregoire. Proportionality and the Rule of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. p. 234-258.
KLATT, Matthias; MEISTER, Moritz. The constitutional structure of proportionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
MASTRODI, Josué. Ponderação de direitos e proporcionalidade das decisões judiciais. Revista de Direito GV, São Paulo, v. 10, n. 2, p. 577-596, 2014.
MENDES, Gilmar Ferreira. A proporcionalidade na jurisprudência do Supremo Tribunal Federal. Repertório IOB de jurisprudência, n. 23/94, p. 469-475, 1994.
MORAES, Fausto Santos de. Ponderação e arbitrariedade: a inadequada recepção de Robert Alexy pelo STF. 2. ed. Salvador: Editora Juspodivum, 2018.
PERU. Tribunal Constitucional. 0010–2000–AI/TC. 2003. Disponível em: https://www.tc.gob.pe/jurisprudencia/2003/00010-2002-AI.html. Acesso em: 19 abr. 2023.
PERU. Tribunal Constitucional. 0007–2006-AI/TC. 2007. Disponível em: https://www.tc.gob.pe/jurisprudencia/2007/00007-2006-AI.html. Acesso em: 19 abr. 2023.
PERU. Tribunal Constitucional. 0032–2010-PI. 2011. Disponível em: https://www.tc.gob.pe/jurisprudencia/2011/00032-2010-AI.html. Acesso em: 19 abr. 2023.
PERU. Tribunal Constitucional. 02437-2013-PA. 2014. Disponível em: https://www.tc.gob.pe/jurisprudencia/2014/02437-2013-AA.pdf. Acesso em: 19 abr. 2023.
PULIDO, Carlos Bernal. El principio de proporcionalidad y los derechos fundamentales. Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia, 2014.
PULIDO, Carlos Bernal. O direito dos direitos: escritos sobre a aplicação dos direitos fundamentais. São Paulo: Marcial Pons, 2013.
REINO UNIDO. Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation, King’s Bench Division, Court of Appeal, 223, 1948.
ROA ROA, J. E. El Modelo de Constitucionalismo débil y la legitimidad de la justicia Constitucional en Colombia. Serie Documentos de Trabajo, Departamento de derecho constitucional, n. 40, p. 1-20, 2015.
SILVA, Luis Virgílio Afonso da. O proporcional e o razoável. Revista dos Tribunais, São Paulo, ano 91, v. 798, p. 23-50, abr. 2002.
SWEET, Alec Stone; MATHEUS, Jud. Proportionality balancing and global. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, v. 47, p. 72-164, 2008.
TAGGART, Michael. Proportionality, deference, wednesbury. New Zealand Law Review, Auckland, p. 423-482, 2008.
YOUNG, Katherine. Proportionality, reasonableness, and economic and social rights. In:
JACKSON, Vick C.; TUSHNET, Mark (ed.). Proportionality. New frontiers, new challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. p. 248-272.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Revista Direitos Humanos e Democracia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in Revista Revista Direitos Humanos e Democracia agree to the following terms:
The works published in Revista Direitos Humanos e Democracia follow the license for journals and research in all environments, whether commercial or non-commercial, that make up the international scientific communication system. The journal is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The editorial team authorizes free access and wide distribution of the published content, provided that the source is cited, i.e., credit is given to the authors and Revista Direitos Humanos e Democracia, and the text is preserved in its entirety. Authors are allowed to deposit pre-print and post-print versions in institutional or thematic repositories or on their personal webpage (website, blog), as long as it is open access and without any embargo period.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which allows sharing the work with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are authorized to enter into separate additional contracts for non-exclusive distribution of the work published in this journal (e.g., publishing in an institutional repository or as a book chapter), with recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their personal webpage) at any point before or during the editorial process, as this may lead to productive changes, as well as increase the impact and citation of the published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
