| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.69 MB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
A presente dissertação objetiva empreender uma análise normativa, empírica e crítica acerca das audiências públicas realizadas pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal brasileiro. Com esse propósito, o trabalho aponta os distintos papéis que diferentes escolas de pensamento jurídico atribuem aos intérpretes judiciais no processo decisório, incluindo o hodierno cenário neoconstitucionalista, marcado pela gradativa “publicização” do direito e pela consagração de uma conjuntura de judicialização da política e das relações sociais. Após, revela como a ideia de supremacia foi edificada e difundida na prática constitucional brasileira, pretendendo o rechaço crítico desse ideário, baseando-se na concepção de que a tarefa de operar a interpretação constitucional é compartilhada entre todos os poderes estatais, bem como com aquele que fundamenta a edição de uma Constituição: o povo. A partir dessa premissa, menciona experiências que promovem a abertura dos poderes públicos à oitiva da sociedade civil, dedicando-se, então, a verificar como operam as audiências públicas no âmbito da jurisdição constitucional brasileira. Apresenta a normativa aplicável às audiências públicas executadas pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal e ilustra um panorama geral concernente à utilização do mecanismo na Corte, abordando de que maneira pode fomentar o aprofundamento de alguns princípios jurídicos e em que proporção é capaz, ao lado do amicus curiae, de atuar na materialização da teoria elaborada por Peter Häberle relativa à abertura dos intérpretes da Constituição. A pesquisa também assinala possíveis fragilidades gerais no manejo das audiências públicas e, especificamente através da audiência pública convocada em razão da Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental n.º 54, examina se e de que forma as exposições dos participantes exercem, de fato, influência na formação dos votos, auxiliando (ou não) na sua motivação. Por fim, propõe medidas práticas tendentes a mitigar eventuais debilidades que envolvem o mecanismo.
This dissertation aims to perform a normative, empirical and critical analysis of the public hearings that take place on Brazilian’s Supreme Court. Taking into account this purpose, this work remarks, first of all, the different roles that different schools of legal thought attribute to judicial interpreters in the decision making process, including the current neoconstitutionalist scenario, characterized by the gradual “publicization” of law and by the consecration of a conjuncture in which politics and social relations are submitted to judicial scrutiny. Afterwards, it analyses how the idea of judicial supremacy was built and spread throughout in Brazilian’s constitutional practice, intending to reject this ideology, based on the idea that constitutional interpretation is a task shared among all the State Powers, as well as with the one who motivates the proclamation of a Constitution: the people. Taking this premise as a starting point, this work highlights other experiences in which civil society takes part in the public sphere, analyzing, then, how do public hearings operate within Brazilian’s judicial review. It points out the rules applied to the public hearings that take place in the Supreme Court and draws a general panorama regarding its use, questioning in which ways it may promote some principles and to what extent it can, beside the amicus curiae, help brings Peter Häberle’s theory regarding the open society of constitutional interpreters into effect. The research also pinpoints possible weaknesses related to the performance of such public hearings and, taking the public hearing that took place when the Supreme Court was examining ADPF 54, it analyzes if and how the participants’ opinion influences the opinions issued, helping (or not) its motivation. At last, it proposes practical measures in order to mitigate eventual weaknesses that involving the mechanism.
This dissertation aims to perform a normative, empirical and critical analysis of the public hearings that take place on Brazilian’s Supreme Court. Taking into account this purpose, this work remarks, first of all, the different roles that different schools of legal thought attribute to judicial interpreters in the decision making process, including the current neoconstitutionalist scenario, characterized by the gradual “publicization” of law and by the consecration of a conjuncture in which politics and social relations are submitted to judicial scrutiny. Afterwards, it analyses how the idea of judicial supremacy was built and spread throughout in Brazilian’s constitutional practice, intending to reject this ideology, based on the idea that constitutional interpretation is a task shared among all the State Powers, as well as with the one who motivates the proclamation of a Constitution: the people. Taking this premise as a starting point, this work highlights other experiences in which civil society takes part in the public sphere, analyzing, then, how do public hearings operate within Brazilian’s judicial review. It points out the rules applied to the public hearings that take place in the Supreme Court and draws a general panorama regarding its use, questioning in which ways it may promote some principles and to what extent it can, beside the amicus curiae, help brings Peter Häberle’s theory regarding the open society of constitutional interpreters into effect. The research also pinpoints possible weaknesses related to the performance of such public hearings and, taking the public hearing that took place when the Supreme Court was examining ADPF 54, it analyzes if and how the participants’ opinion influences the opinions issued, helping (or not) its motivation. At last, it proposes practical measures in order to mitigate eventual weaknesses that involving the mechanism.
Description
Keywords
Audiência Pública Jurisdição constitucional Participação social Diálogo social Supremo Tribunal Federal - Brasil Teses de mestrado - 2023 Public hearings Constitutional courts Social engagement Social dialogue Supreme Court