Ativismo judicial ou jurisdição constitucional: o que fez o Supremo Tribunal Federal no caso do foro por prerrogativa de função?
Carregando...
Tipo
TCC
Data de publicação
2022-12
Periódico
Citações (Scopus)
Autores
Hilsenrath, Amanda Navajas
Orientador
Camillo, Carlos Eduardo Nicoletti
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Membros da banca
Programa
Resumo
O presente trabalho consiste em uma monografia de conclusão do curso de Direito. Foi feita uma
análise do precedente judicial estabelecido na ação penal 937 (AP 937) julgada pelo Supremo
Tribunal Federal (STF) em que se definiu novos critérios jurídicos para a aplicação do foro por
prerrogativa de função. Desse modo, analisou-se os argumentos apresentados no voto vencedor e
a maneira como estes foram construídos formal e materialmente. De posse destes dados, comparouse,
então, os argumentos a favor e contra à tese do voto vencedor trazidos pelos demais ministros.
Posteriormente, com base na literatura jurídica, analisou-se se a atividade judicante da Corte no
que tange o estabelecimento do precedente demonstrou ter sido uma atuação legítima dos poderes
de jurisdição constitucional, ou se, a sua atuação demonstra indícios de ativismo judicial. Ao final
desta análise, concluiu-se que, baseado nos dados coletados, há fortes indícios de ter havido um
transbordamento da competência do Supremo Tribunal Federal, o qual parece ferir diretamente o
princípio da Separação de Poderes e o princípio do devido processo legal.
This paper is the result of a monograph developed to conclude the course of Law. It consists of the analysis of the judicial precedent established in criminal action 937 (AP 937) judged by the Federal Supreme Court (STF) in which new legal criteria were defined for the application of the politicians’ special jurisdiction rule. The arguments presented in the winning opinion were analyzed and the way in which they were formally and materially constructed. With these data in hand, the arguments in favor and against the thesis of the winning opinion brought by the other Justices were also compared. Subsequently, comparing the behavior of the Court with what the legal literature determines, it was analyzed whether the judicial activity of the Court regarding the establishment of the precedent demonstrated to have been a legitimate act of the powers of constitutional jurisdiction, or if it shows evidence of judicial activism. At the end of this analysis, it was concluded that, based on the data collected, there are strong evidence that point to have been an overflow of the competence of the Federal Supreme Court, which seems to directly violate the principle of Separation of Powers and the principle of due process of law.
This paper is the result of a monograph developed to conclude the course of Law. It consists of the analysis of the judicial precedent established in criminal action 937 (AP 937) judged by the Federal Supreme Court (STF) in which new legal criteria were defined for the application of the politicians’ special jurisdiction rule. The arguments presented in the winning opinion were analyzed and the way in which they were formally and materially constructed. With these data in hand, the arguments in favor and against the thesis of the winning opinion brought by the other Justices were also compared. Subsequently, comparing the behavior of the Court with what the legal literature determines, it was analyzed whether the judicial activity of the Court regarding the establishment of the precedent demonstrated to have been a legitimate act of the powers of constitutional jurisdiction, or if it shows evidence of judicial activism. At the end of this analysis, it was concluded that, based on the data collected, there are strong evidence that point to have been an overflow of the competence of the Federal Supreme Court, which seems to directly violate the principle of Separation of Powers and the principle of due process of law.
Descrição
Indicado ao Prêmio TCC
Palavras-chave
foro por prerrogativa de função , precedente judicial , jurisdição constitucional , politicians’ special jurisdiction , judicial precedent , constitutional jurisdiction