A suprema corte no Brasil: análise comparativa da contribuição democrática do Tribunal, no Império e na Nova República
Tipo
TCC
Data de publicação
2021-06
Periódico
Citações (Scopus)
Autores
Silva, Victor Braga Galha da
Orientador
Lorencini, Bruno César
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Membros da banca
Programa
Resumo
Com uma notável crise política em curso, o Brasil é uma nação democrática correndo riscos diários de ser arruinada. Na história das democracias modernas muitos golpes, guerras sangrentas, usurpações e perturbação da paz social através do caos político foram experimentados mundo afora. Contudo, no caso do Brasil, passados quase dois séculos desde a liberdade promovida em 1822 por Dom Pedro I, o país continua a procurar a melhor definição de conceitos democráticos elementares, e persegue um limiar tão básico de liberdade e estabilidade política e jurídica que já deveria ter sido conquistado de forma tão permanente que abaixo dele não se aceitasse viver. Parte significativa dos conflitos repousa sobre a atuação do Supremo Tribunal Federal que, após a promulgação da Constituição Cidadã, assumiu papéis amplos, sendo a instituição na qual desembocam quase que todos os afluentes dos concorrentes Poderes da República. Assim, considerando-se o pressuposto de que o Brasil é um país atrasado democraticamente, pois conquistas de liberdade política ainda presentes nos sonhos dos brasileiros já são realidade bem fundada em outras nações ocidentais; que o regime político que se dá sob os auspícios daquela que é considerada a mais evoluída socialmente Constituição Federal está abatido e sofre profundamente; além de que há a existência de uma Corte Superior responsável por fazer observar a referida Constituição, mas cuja atuação tem sido alvo até de questionamento de legitimidade, há de se procurar compreender a contribuição à democracia brasileira por sua Suprema Corte, mais especificamente do Supremo Tribunal de Justiça do Império e do atual Supremo Tribunal encabeçado pela Constituição Federal de 1988. Através de uma comparação histórica entre as atividades e as competências atribuídas à uma primeira fase de atuação judicial e política e a fase atualmente vivida pela Suprema Corte brasileira, serão investigadas em quais fases de atuação dos mencionados Foros Superiores se extraiu deles maior contribuição ao ambiente democrático nacional. Sem contestar a importância do órgão, este trabalho se prestará menos à análise das épocas que à análise da relação entre os Tribunais e o sistema político e jurídico de seu entorno; entre as funções democráticas constitucionalmente previstas a cada um e o desempenho prático das Cortes. Analisados os papéis dos Foros Superiores e sua relação com a previsão constitucional a eles dada, além de consideração acerca da natureza política ou jurídica da Corte, se conclui que, do ponto de vista do papel histórico de promover estabilidade e perenidade jurídica e política, o caráter residual das atribuições do Primeiro Supremo nacional teria mais harmonia com o sistema político de seu tempo e até que serviria de sugestão à contemporaneidade, uma vez que os prolongamentos institucionais excessivamente amplos do atual STF parecem conferir à Corte a dura realidade de que precisa cumprir com um papel inexecutável, se sobrepondo a questões intimamente concorrentes com outros Poderes da República e mesmo com os próprios cidadãos.
With a notable political crisis underway, Brazil is a democratic nation at daily risk of being ruined. In the history of modern democracies, many coups, bloody wars, and other gender of disruption of social peace as a result of political chaos have been experienced worldwide. However, in the case of Brazil, almost two centuries after the freedom promoted in 1822 by Dom Pedro I, the country continues to seek the best definition of elementary democratic concepts and pursues some basic threshold of freedom and political and legal stability that it should have already been conquered so permanently that anything but it would not be accepted. A significant part of the conflict rests on the Supreme Federal Court’s performance, which, after the promulgation of the “Constituição Cidadã”, assumed broad roles, being the institution in which almost all affluents of the competing Branches of the Republic flow. Thus, considering that Brazil is a country that is democratically backward, as conquests of political freedom still present in the dreams of Brazilians are already a well-founded reality in other Western nations; that the political regime that takes place under the one that is considered to be the most socially evolved Federal Constitution is down and suffers deeply; in addition to the existence of a Superior Court responsible for ensuring compliance with the aforementioned Constitution, but whose performance has even been the subject of questioning of legitimacy, one must seek to understand the contribution to Brazilian democracy by its Supreme Court, more specifically the Supreme Court of Justice of the Empire and the current Supreme Court headed by the Federal Constitution of 1988. Through a historical comparison between the activities and competences attributed to a first phase of judicial and political action and the phase currently experienced by the Brazilian Supreme Court, it will be investigated in which phases of performance of the aforementioned Superior Forums the greatest contribution to the democratic environment was extracted from them. Without questioning the importance of such kind democratic institution, this work assumes to be less suited to the analysis of the times than to the analysis of the relationship between the Courts and the political and legal system in their surroundings; between the democratic functions constitutionally provided for each one and the practical performance of the Courts. Once analyzed the roles of the Superior Forums and their relationship with the constitutional provision given to them, in addition to considering the political or legal nature of the Court, it is concluded that, from the point of view of the historical role of promoting legal and political stability and permanence, the residual character of the attributions of the First National Supreme Court would have more harmony with the political system of that time and would even serve as a suggestion to contemporary times, since the excessively wide institutional extensions of the current STF seem to give the Court the harsh reality that it needs to comply with a unenforceable role, overlapping with issues closely competing with other Branches of Government and even with the citizens themselves.
With a notable political crisis underway, Brazil is a democratic nation at daily risk of being ruined. In the history of modern democracies, many coups, bloody wars, and other gender of disruption of social peace as a result of political chaos have been experienced worldwide. However, in the case of Brazil, almost two centuries after the freedom promoted in 1822 by Dom Pedro I, the country continues to seek the best definition of elementary democratic concepts and pursues some basic threshold of freedom and political and legal stability that it should have already been conquered so permanently that anything but it would not be accepted. A significant part of the conflict rests on the Supreme Federal Court’s performance, which, after the promulgation of the “Constituição Cidadã”, assumed broad roles, being the institution in which almost all affluents of the competing Branches of the Republic flow. Thus, considering that Brazil is a country that is democratically backward, as conquests of political freedom still present in the dreams of Brazilians are already a well-founded reality in other Western nations; that the political regime that takes place under the one that is considered to be the most socially evolved Federal Constitution is down and suffers deeply; in addition to the existence of a Superior Court responsible for ensuring compliance with the aforementioned Constitution, but whose performance has even been the subject of questioning of legitimacy, one must seek to understand the contribution to Brazilian democracy by its Supreme Court, more specifically the Supreme Court of Justice of the Empire and the current Supreme Court headed by the Federal Constitution of 1988. Through a historical comparison between the activities and competences attributed to a first phase of judicial and political action and the phase currently experienced by the Brazilian Supreme Court, it will be investigated in which phases of performance of the aforementioned Superior Forums the greatest contribution to the democratic environment was extracted from them. Without questioning the importance of such kind democratic institution, this work assumes to be less suited to the analysis of the times than to the analysis of the relationship between the Courts and the political and legal system in their surroundings; between the democratic functions constitutionally provided for each one and the practical performance of the Courts. Once analyzed the roles of the Superior Forums and their relationship with the constitutional provision given to them, in addition to considering the political or legal nature of the Court, it is concluded that, from the point of view of the historical role of promoting legal and political stability and permanence, the residual character of the attributions of the First National Supreme Court would have more harmony with the political system of that time and would even serve as a suggestion to contemporary times, since the excessively wide institutional extensions of the current STF seem to give the Court the harsh reality that it needs to comply with a unenforceable role, overlapping with issues closely competing with other Branches of Government and even with the citizens themselves.
Descrição
Trabalho indicado pela banca examinadora ao Prêmio TCC
Palavras-chave
democracia , suprema corte , segurança jurídica , direito constitucional , democracy , supreme court , legal certainty , constitution law