Amicus Curiae e Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental (ADPF): O aprimoramento da legitimidade democrática e plural das decisões
Carregando...
Arquivos
Data
2017-09-29
Autores
Ribeiro, Guilherme Pinho
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
Este trabalho investiga a atuação do amicus curiae no âmbito do controle concentrado de constitucionalidade e, mais particularmente, nas arguições de descumprimento de preceito fundamental (ADPFs) cujo mérito foi julgado pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) até julho de 2017. Inspirado em estudos empíricos que se debruçaram sobre o amicus curiae no direito norte-americano, especialmente no âmbito da Suprema Corte, são examinadas onze ADPFs, levantando-se os argumentos trazidos pelos principais atores do processo, aí inclusos os amici curiae, e verificando como esses argumentos reverberaram nas decisões da Corte. A dissertação está organizada em três capítulos. Os dois primeiros são de caráter propedêutico, ao passo que o terceiro encerra o centro da investigação. Naqueles, examinam-se, respectivamente, os traços principais da ADPF e do amicus curiae. Neste, procede-se ao exame detalhado das onze ADPFs selecionadas. As principais conclusões do estudo são as seguintes: os amici curiae apresentam argumentos novos no processo, embora invariavelmente também retomem argumentos já expressos por outros atores do processo; os argumentos dos amici são levados em consideração nas decisões dos ministros, embora de modo irregular e, por isso, imprevisível; não há correlação entre o desfecho majoritariamente defendido pelos amici em um dado processo e a decisão do STF, de modo que a chamada “teoria do barômetro” não é apta a explicar o impacto dos amici no processo decisório no universo aqui considerado.
This work investigates the participation of the amicus curiae in the Brazilian system of abstract judicial review, more particularly in the so-called arguição de descumprimento de preceito fundamental (literally, Claim of Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept, an action aimed at countering the violation of a fundamental constitutional norm, hereafter ADPF). The scope of the investigation is all the ADPFs having been decided with prejudice until July 2017, which amounts to eleven cases. The major source of inspiration for this work was a set of US empirical studies devoted to the amicus curiae, especially in the context of Supreme Court cases. The arguments raised by the different participants of the trial are listed and confronted with the votes of the Brazilian Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal, STF) ministers. The dissertation is divided in three chapters. The first two are introductory, examining the key features of the ADPF and of the amicus curiae in Brazilian law, whereas the third comprises the empirical examination of the ADPFs. The main results of the study are: the amici curiae have presented many new arguments in the context of each case, although they never fail to repeat arguments already voiced by other participants; the arguments of the amici are taken in consideration in the votes, but in an irregular and therefore unpredictable way; there is no correlation between the outcome expected by the amici in a case and the Court’s decision, which renders the so-called “Barometer Theory” unable to explain the impact of the amici on the decision process, at least within the set of decisions examined in this investigation.
This work investigates the participation of the amicus curiae in the Brazilian system of abstract judicial review, more particularly in the so-called arguição de descumprimento de preceito fundamental (literally, Claim of Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept, an action aimed at countering the violation of a fundamental constitutional norm, hereafter ADPF). The scope of the investigation is all the ADPFs having been decided with prejudice until July 2017, which amounts to eleven cases. The major source of inspiration for this work was a set of US empirical studies devoted to the amicus curiae, especially in the context of Supreme Court cases. The arguments raised by the different participants of the trial are listed and confronted with the votes of the Brazilian Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal, STF) ministers. The dissertation is divided in three chapters. The first two are introductory, examining the key features of the ADPF and of the amicus curiae in Brazilian law, whereas the third comprises the empirical examination of the ADPFs. The main results of the study are: the amici curiae have presented many new arguments in the context of each case, although they never fail to repeat arguments already voiced by other participants; the arguments of the amici are taken in consideration in the votes, but in an irregular and therefore unpredictable way; there is no correlation between the outcome expected by the amici in a case and the Court’s decision, which renders the so-called “Barometer Theory” unable to explain the impact of the amici on the decision process, at least within the set of decisions examined in this investigation.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Arguição de descumprimento de preceito fundamental. amicus curiae. direito constitucional. Supremo Tribunal Federal., Claim of non-compliance with a fundamental precept. amicus curiae. constitutional law. Supreme Federal Court.