Ativismo judiciário na pandemia: uma análise sobre a decisão do STF na ação direta de inconstitucionalidade (ADI) 6.341
Carregando...
Tipo
Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso
Data de publicação
2023-06
Periódico
Citações (Scopus)
Autores
Ribeiro, Gabriel Anadão Aliende
Orientador
Lorencini, Bruno César
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Membros da banca
Programa
Resumo
Este trabalho tem como objetivo oferecer um panorama sobre a Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade (ADI) 6.341, proposta pelo Partido Democrático Trabalhista (PDT), em razão da Medida Provisória 926/2020, que modificava a principal legislação sobre o enfrentamento ao Covid-19, a Lei 13.979/2020, que visava concentrar no Governo Federal o poder de decisão sobre medidas em combate à pandemia da COVID-19, como isolamento, quarentena, restrição de locomoção por rodovias, portos e aeroportos, interdição de atividades e serviços essenciais. Para tanto, será analisado o papel fundamental do Supremo Tribunal Federal como defensor da Constituição em momento de crise, apresentando breve histórico sobre o conceito de separação dos poderes, ativismo judicial e judicialização, tendo como objeto a análise da atuação do STF. Essa contextualização, em conjunto com os argumentos apresentados na ADI 6.341 e com os votos dos Ministros do Supremo Tribunal Federal, serão parâmetro para esclarecer se houve ativismo judicial por parte do STF ao declarar que a centralização do poder pelo Governo Federal possuía caráter inconstitucional, garantindo, assim, autonomia aos prefeitos e governadores para determinarem medidas para o enfrentamento ao coronavírus.
This study aims to provide an overview of the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) 6.341, filed by the Democratic Labor Party (PDT), due to Provisional Measure 926/2020, which modified the main legislation regarding the fight against Covid-19, Law 13.979/2020, aiming to centralize in the Federal Government the decision-making power regarding measures to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, such as isolation, quarantine, restriction of movement on highways, ports, and airports, closure of essential activities and services. To achieve this, the fundamental role of the Supreme Federal Court as a defender of the Constitution in times of crisis will be analyzed, presenting a brief historical background on the concept of separation of powers, judicial activism, and judicialization, focusing on the analysis of the Supreme Court's performance. This contextualization, together with the arguments presented in ADI 6.341 and the votes of the Justices of the Supreme Federal Court, will serve as parameters to clarify whether there was judicial activism on the part of the Court in declaring that the concentration of power by the Federal Government was unconstitutional, thus guaranteeing autonomy to mayors and governors to determine measures to address the coronavirus.
This study aims to provide an overview of the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) 6.341, filed by the Democratic Labor Party (PDT), due to Provisional Measure 926/2020, which modified the main legislation regarding the fight against Covid-19, Law 13.979/2020, aiming to centralize in the Federal Government the decision-making power regarding measures to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, such as isolation, quarantine, restriction of movement on highways, ports, and airports, closure of essential activities and services. To achieve this, the fundamental role of the Supreme Federal Court as a defender of the Constitution in times of crisis will be analyzed, presenting a brief historical background on the concept of separation of powers, judicial activism, and judicialization, focusing on the analysis of the Supreme Court's performance. This contextualization, together with the arguments presented in ADI 6.341 and the votes of the Justices of the Supreme Federal Court, will serve as parameters to clarify whether there was judicial activism on the part of the Court in declaring that the concentration of power by the Federal Government was unconstitutional, thus guaranteeing autonomy to mayors and governors to determine measures to address the coronavirus.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
ação direta de constitucionalidade , Supremo Tribunal Federal , separação de poderes , ativismo judicial , direct action of unconstitutionality , Supreme Federal Court , separation of powers , judicial activism