The conceptual limits of the action of constitutional courts in a democratic state
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21527/2317-5389.2024.23.15098Keywords:
Democratic state of law, judicial activism, judicialization of politicsAbstract
Considering the multidimensional character concerning the practice of judicial activism, this article aims to analyze the performance of the Supreme Court, while constitutional court, when making decisions and resolving cases that, in the view of the authors, presented itself as activist and unconstitutional, by extrapolating the competence attributed by the Federal Constitution of 1988 to the exercise of judicial power. This work was developed based on theoretical references on the subject, as well as through the analysis of jurisprudential understandings issued by the STF in specific cases, where it was characterized the taking of activist decisions by that court. The categorization performed by the authors, regarding the recognition of activist action by the Brazilian constitutional court, aims to foster the debate about the need to reduce the judicial subjectivism in cases submitted to its analysis, while guardian not of a document, but of democracy, freedom and identity of his people, because judicial activism, besides representing an express violation of the separation of powers, may also represent a usurpation of function with the consequent weakening of our democratic rule of law.
References
APPIO, Eduardo. Controle Judicial das Políticas Públicas no Brasil. Paraná: Juruá, 2009.
BLACK, Hugo. The Bill of Rights. New York University Law Review, v. 35, n. 4, 1960.
BOBBIO, Norberto. Teoria do Ordenamento Jurídico. 6. ed. Brasília: Editora Universidade de Brasília, 1995.
BLOOM JR.; LACKLAND, H. Methods of Interpretation. How the Supreme Court Reads the Constituition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
BRASIL. Constituição Federal de 1988. Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm. Acesso em: 6 fev. 2023.
BRASIL. Lei Federal nº 7.716, de 5 de janeiro de 1989. Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l7716.htm. Acesso em: 1º set. 2022.
CAMPOS, Carlos Alexandre de Azevedo. Dimensões do ativismo judicial do Supremo Tribunal Federal. Rio de Janeiro: Forense. 2014.
CANOTILHO, J. J. Gomes. Direito Constitucional e Teoria da Constituição. 7. ed. Imprenta: Coimbra, Almedina, 2003.
COURA Alexandre de Castro; PAULA, Quenya Correa de. Ativismo judicial e judicialização da política: sobre o substancialismo e procedimentalismo no Estado Democrático de Direito. Revista Brasileira de Estudos Políticos, v. 116, 2018.
DWORKIN, Ronald. Law´s empire. Belknap. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge. 1986.
DWORKIN, Ronald. Taking rights seriously. Harvard University Press: Cambridge. 1978.
MAUS, Ingeborg. Judiciário como superego da sociedade. O papel da atividade jurisprudencial na “sociedade órfã”. Novos Estudos Cebrap, n. 58, p. 183-202, nov. 2000.
MENDES, Gilmar Ferreira; BRANCO, Paulo Gustavo Gonet. Curso de Direito Constitucional. 6. ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2011.
MIRANDA, Jorge. Teoria do Estado e da Constituição. 4. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2015.
MONTESQUIEU, Charles de Secondat, Baron de, 1689 - 1755. O espírito das leis. Apresentação Renato Janine Ribeiro; tradução Cristina Murachco - São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 1996 - (Paidéia).
RUBIO LLORETE, Francisco. La Jurisdicción Constitucional como Forma de Creación de Derecho. Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional, Madrid: CEPC, v. 22, 1988.
SARLET, Ingo Wolfgang; MARINONI Luiz Guilherme; MITIDIERO, Daniel. Curso de Direito Constitucional, 6. ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2017.
SCHLESINGER, Jr., Arthur M. The Supreme Court: 1947. Fortune, v. 35, 1947.
SILVA, José Afonso. Curso de Direito Constitucional Positivo. 36. ed. São Paulo: Malheiros, 2013.
STF. Supremo Tribunal Federal. Regimento Interno do Supremo Tribunal Federal. Disponível em: https://www.stf.jus.br/arquivo/cms/legislacaoRegimentoInterno/anexo/RISTF.pdf. Acesso em: 6 fev. 2023.
STF. Supremo Tribunal Federal. Inquérito nº 4781. Disponível em: https://www.stf.jus.br/arquivo/cms/noticiaNoticiaStf/anexo/mandado27maio.pdf. Acesso em: 6 fev. 2023.
STF. Supremo Tribunal Federal. ADIn nº 4277/2008. Disponível em: https://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=AC&docID=628635. Acesso em: 1º set. 2022.
STF. Supremo Tribunal Federal. ADO nº 26/2019. Disponível em: https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=4515053. Acesso em: 1 de setembro de 2022.
STF. Supremo Tribunal Federal. ADPF nº 54/2004. Disponível em: https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=2226954. Acesso em: 01 de setembro de 2022.
TROP V. DULLES. 365 U.S. 86, 128 (1958). Disponível em: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1956/70. Acesso em: 1º set. 2022.
WILKINSON III, J. Harvie. Cosmic Constitucional Theory. Why Americans Are Losing Their Inalienable Right to Self-Governance. New York: Oxford University, 2012. p. 35.
WHINNEY, Edward. Judicial Review in the English-Speaking World. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1956. p. 170-185.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Revista Direitos Humanos e Democracia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
By publishing in the Revista Direitos Humanos e Democracia, authors agree to the following terms:
Articles are licensed under the Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0), which allows:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format;
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, including commercial use.
These permissions are irrevocable, provided the following terms are respected:
Attribution — authors must be properly credited, with a link to the license and indication of any modifications made;
No additional restrictions — no legal or technological measures may be applied that restrict the use permitted by the license.
Notices:
The license does not apply to elements in the public domain or covered by legal exceptions.
The license does not grant all rights required for specific uses (e.g., image rights, privacy, or moral rights).
The journal is not responsible for opinions expressed in the articles, which remain the sole responsibility of the authors. The Editor, with the support of the Editorial Committee, reserves the right to suggest or request modifications when necessary.
Only original scientific articles presenting research results of interest, not previously published or simultaneously submitted to another journal with the same purpose, will be accepted.
References to trademarks or specific products are intended solely for identification purposes and do not imply any promotional endorsement by the authors or the journal.
License Agreement: Authors retain copyright over their articles and grant the Revista Direitos Humanos e Democracia the right of first publication.
