A carregar...
Publicação
Controle jurisdicional da discricionariedade administrativa no Brasil : da erosão da legalidade à usurpação da legitimidade
| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.22 MB | Adobe PDF |
Autores
Orientador(es)
Resumo(s)
A discricionariedade administrativa no Brasil reflete o paradoxo do sistema constitucional de administração executiva baseado na concepção rígida da separação de poderes (modelo francês), porém, submetido ao controle de uma jurisdição universal e ilimitada (judicial review). Conduzida sob o enfoque do realismo jurídico analítico, utilizando-se da revisão bibliográfica e de casos julgados, a investigação revela como as teses da corrente prevalente da doutrina de direito administrativo, condicionada à colonialidade do saber, foram desconectadas do direito constitucional positivo (discurso das fontes) para servir de fundamentos aos enunciados prescritivos do controle jurisdicional (discurso dos intérpretes) que excede os limites da separação funcional de poderes e da legalidade. São identificadas três fases do controle jurisdicional no período republicano, correspondentes ao grau de amplitude e intensidade: controle restrito, controle amplo e controle extremo. A fase do controle restrito (1889-1980) caracteriza-se pela deferência do Poder Judiciário diante do mérito do ato discricionário, restringindo-se à verificação da legalidade ou da ilegitimidade por abuso de poder ou desvio de finalidade. A fase do controle amplo, iniciada no final dos governos militares (1964-1985), caracteriza-se pelo deslocamento do tema da discricionariedade administrativa, até então situado pela doutrina no terreno da política, para o campo da interpretação, restringindo-se a problematização aos conceitos jurídicos indeterminados e à tese da “redução a zero” pela “solução ótima”, sujeita à valoração do controle. A fase do controle extremo, iniciada na vigência da Constituição de 1988, caracteriza pela influência do neoconstitucionalismo e do pós-positivismo. A doutrina passa a justificar o controle com base em princípios constitucionais explícitos ou implícitos, sujeitos à ponderação in concreto. A falta de densificação do conceito jurídico de princípios, de critérios de identificação objetiva destes e de seus respectivos conteúdos jurídicos permite ao controle substituir a discricionariedade administrativa pela discricionariedade judicial, como demonstram os casos julgados do Supremo Tribunal Federal e do Superior Tribunal de Justiça, causando prejuízos à gestão pública e aos agentes titulares de competências discricionárias sujeitos à imputação de improbidade administrativa por atos que atentam contra princípios da Administração, nos termos do art. 11 da Lei 8.429/1992 (Lei de Improbidade Administrativa).
The administrative discretion in Brazil reflects the paradox of the constitutional system of executive administration based on the rigid conception of separation of powers (french model) but submitted to the control of a universal and unlimited jurisdiction (judicial review). The investigation reveals how prevalent theses of the doctrine of administrative law, conditioned to the coloniality of knowledge, were disconnected from positive constitutional law (source’s discourse) to serve as a foundation for the prescriptive statements of jurisdictional control (interpreter’s discourse) that goes beyond the limits of functional separation of powers and legality. Three phases of jurisdictional control in the Republican period are identified, corresponding to the degree of amplitude and intensity: restricted control, broad control and extreme control. The restricted control phase (1889-1980) is characterized by the deference of the Judiciary to the merit of the discretionary act, being restricted to the verification of legality or illegitimacy by abuse of power or misuse of purpose. The phase of broad control, initiated at the end of the military administrations (1964-1985), is characterized by the subjective displacement of administrative discretion, hitherto situated by doctrine in the field of politics, for the field of interpretation, restricting itself to problematization to the indeterminate legal concepts and to the "zeroing" thesis by the "optimal solution", subject to the valuation of control. The phase of extreme control, initiated under the Constitution of 1988, is characterized by the influence of neo-constitutionalism and post-positivism. The doctrine starts to justify control based on explicit or implicit constitutional principles, subject to concrete weighting. The lack of densification of the legal concept of principles, of criteria for the objective identification of these and their respective legal content allows the control to replace administrative discretion by judicial discretion, as evidenced by the cases judged by the Federal Supreme Court and the Superior Court, causing damages to the public management and agents with discretionary powers subject to the imputation of administrative improbity for acts that violate principles of the Administration, under the terms of art. 11 of Law 8,429 / 1992 (Administrative Improbity Act).
The administrative discretion in Brazil reflects the paradox of the constitutional system of executive administration based on the rigid conception of separation of powers (french model) but submitted to the control of a universal and unlimited jurisdiction (judicial review). The investigation reveals how prevalent theses of the doctrine of administrative law, conditioned to the coloniality of knowledge, were disconnected from positive constitutional law (source’s discourse) to serve as a foundation for the prescriptive statements of jurisdictional control (interpreter’s discourse) that goes beyond the limits of functional separation of powers and legality. Three phases of jurisdictional control in the Republican period are identified, corresponding to the degree of amplitude and intensity: restricted control, broad control and extreme control. The restricted control phase (1889-1980) is characterized by the deference of the Judiciary to the merit of the discretionary act, being restricted to the verification of legality or illegitimacy by abuse of power or misuse of purpose. The phase of broad control, initiated at the end of the military administrations (1964-1985), is characterized by the subjective displacement of administrative discretion, hitherto situated by doctrine in the field of politics, for the field of interpretation, restricting itself to problematization to the indeterminate legal concepts and to the "zeroing" thesis by the "optimal solution", subject to the valuation of control. The phase of extreme control, initiated under the Constitution of 1988, is characterized by the influence of neo-constitutionalism and post-positivism. The doctrine starts to justify control based on explicit or implicit constitutional principles, subject to concrete weighting. The lack of densification of the legal concept of principles, of criteria for the objective identification of these and their respective legal content allows the control to replace administrative discretion by judicial discretion, as evidenced by the cases judged by the Federal Supreme Court and the Superior Court, causing damages to the public management and agents with discretionary powers subject to the imputation of administrative improbity for acts that violate principles of the Administration, under the terms of art. 11 of Law 8,429 / 1992 (Administrative Improbity Act).
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Direito administrativo Discricionariedade administrativa Controle judicial Princípio da legalidade Separação de poderes Ponderação judicial Brasil Teses de mestrado - 2019