Os tribunais de contas, jurisdição e eficácia e efetividade de suas decisões
Carregando...
Data
2016-08-22
Autores
Salomão, Eduardo Mendonça [UNESP]
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
O desenvolvimento do controle das contas e dinheiros públicos acompanha a evolução do homem no tempo. Desde as sociedades mais antigas, após o advento do Estado e a necessidade de arrecadação de impostos para o custeio público, os sistemas de controle surgem, se proliferam e coexistem em diferentes regiões do globo terrestre. A separação dos Poderes do Estado, advinda de Montesquieu, estabeleceu a divisão clássica entre os blocos orgânicos que se convencionaram chamar de Poderes Executivo, Legislativo e Judiciário. Nesta senda, sob análise global, o órgão de controle nos Estados pode estar atrelado a algum dos três poderes mencionados, também podendo coexistir autonomamente, ou, ainda, existir na forma de um novo poder, um quarto Poder Controlador. No Brasil, não é novidade a opção pelo sistema clássico com três blocos orgânicos, cada qual com sua respectiva atribuição ou função principal, bem como também funções exercidas por excepcionalidade. O objetivo maior da tripartição é, justamente, o balanceamento e controle dos Poderes, impondo freios e contrapesos, sistema elucidado pelos Federalistas norte-americanos. Destarte, desde as primeiras normas acerca do órgão de controle, chamados no Brasil de Tribunais de Contas, inúmeras duvidas foram surgindo, parte destas por questões do vocábulo empregado e outras oriundas das doutrinas e interpretações do direito pátrio. Entre as questões nebulosas e controvertidas sobre o Tribunal de Contas, no Brasil, estão o seu posicionamento constitucional, a natureza jurídica deste órgão, sua autonomia ou subordinação, a natureza jurídica de suas decisões, bem como, se este exerce ou não função jurisdicional. No mesmo sentido, a questão de exercício auxiliar no controle externo das contas do executivo pelo legislativo, para final decisão, e, a possibilidade de revisão de suas decisões pelo poder judiciário pode gerar novas dúvidas. Na atual Constituição de 1988, as funções dos Tribunais de Contas foram delineadas e, da análise normativa dos dispositivos desta Carta Magna fora possível extrair a jurisdição anômala exercida pela Corte em comento. Levando em consideração a unidade jurisdicional, e os limites das decisões dos Tribunais de Contas da União ou dos Estados, percebe-se as possibilidades e impossibilidades de sua atuação. Pode-se, inclusive, averiguar, no trato de suas decisões, se há eficácia e efetividade em suas decisões, e em qual medida o sistema jurisdicional Brasileiro colabora para este fato.
The development of the control of public accounts and public money follows the evolution of man in time. From ancient societies times, after the advent of the State and the need for tax revenue for public funding, control systems arise, proliferate and coexist in different regions of the globe. The separation of State powers, arising from Montesquieu’s theory, established the classic division between the organic blocks that are known as the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches. Thus, in an overall analysis, the State controlling organs can be linked to any of the three mentioned Branches, also with the possibility of coexisting independently, or even exist as a new sort of Branch, a Fourth Controlling Branch. In Brazil, it is known that the classic system with three organic blocks was a choice by the State formation, each with their respective assignment or main function as well as some functions could also be performed by exceptionality. The main objective of the tripartism form of State is precisely the balance and control of powers, imposing the checks and balances system, the one elucidated by the American Federalists. Thus, since the first laws on the controlling organs appeared, known in Brazil as Audit Courts, many doubts have arisen, some of these issues take place because of the expression used to label the public money and public account controlling organs and other issues are derived from the doctrines and interpretations of the Brazilian Law. Among the nebulous and controversial issues on the Audit Courts, in Brazil, these issues are about its constitutional position, its legal nature, its autonomy or subordination, the legal nature of their decisions, and if they exercise or not a judicial function. Similarly, the issue on auxiliary exercising in the external control of the accounts of the executive by the legislature for final decision, and the possibility of review of decisions by the judiciary can generate new doubts. In the current Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988, the functions of the Audit Courts were outlined, and from the normative analysis of the provisions of this Charter it was possible to extract the anomalous jurisdiction exercised by the Audit Courts. Taking into consideration the jurisdiction unit, and the limits of the decisions of the Union Audit Courts or the States Audit Courts, it is possible to realize the possibilities and impossibilities their auditing performances. And it may also be verified, regarding the Audit Courts decisions, if there is efficiency and effectiveness in their decisions, and to what extent the Brazilian Judicial Branch contributes to this fact.
The development of the control of public accounts and public money follows the evolution of man in time. From ancient societies times, after the advent of the State and the need for tax revenue for public funding, control systems arise, proliferate and coexist in different regions of the globe. The separation of State powers, arising from Montesquieu’s theory, established the classic division between the organic blocks that are known as the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches. Thus, in an overall analysis, the State controlling organs can be linked to any of the three mentioned Branches, also with the possibility of coexisting independently, or even exist as a new sort of Branch, a Fourth Controlling Branch. In Brazil, it is known that the classic system with three organic blocks was a choice by the State formation, each with their respective assignment or main function as well as some functions could also be performed by exceptionality. The main objective of the tripartism form of State is precisely the balance and control of powers, imposing the checks and balances system, the one elucidated by the American Federalists. Thus, since the first laws on the controlling organs appeared, known in Brazil as Audit Courts, many doubts have arisen, some of these issues take place because of the expression used to label the public money and public account controlling organs and other issues are derived from the doctrines and interpretations of the Brazilian Law. Among the nebulous and controversial issues on the Audit Courts, in Brazil, these issues are about its constitutional position, its legal nature, its autonomy or subordination, the legal nature of their decisions, and if they exercise or not a judicial function. Similarly, the issue on auxiliary exercising in the external control of the accounts of the executive by the legislature for final decision, and the possibility of review of decisions by the judiciary can generate new doubts. In the current Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988, the functions of the Audit Courts were outlined, and from the normative analysis of the provisions of this Charter it was possible to extract the anomalous jurisdiction exercised by the Audit Courts. Taking into consideration the jurisdiction unit, and the limits of the decisions of the Union Audit Courts or the States Audit Courts, it is possible to realize the possibilities and impossibilities their auditing performances. And it may also be verified, regarding the Audit Courts decisions, if there is efficiency and effectiveness in their decisions, and to what extent the Brazilian Judicial Branch contributes to this fact.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Tribunal de Contas, Audit Courts, Audit Courts jurisdiction, Jurisdição, Jurisdição anômala, Eficácia e efetividade das decisões, Jurisdição dos Tribunais de Contas, Jurisdiction, Anomalous jurisdiction, Efficiency and effectiveness of decisions