Processo administrativo disciplinar e o direito à ampla defesa: paradoxos do conteúdo enunciado pela súmula vinculante n°5 do STF
Loading...
item.page.type
TCC
Date
2018-12-03
item.page.ispartof
item.page.citationsscopus
Authors
Moretto, Marcela
publication.page.advisor
Nohara, Irene Patricia
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
publication.page.board
publication.page.program
Abstract
O ordenamento jurídico que rege as sanções administrativas disciplinares contempla os requisitos necessários que devem ser observados no momento de se levar a diante a imputação de uma infração ao administrado, como, por exemplo, a instauração do processo administrativo disciplinar e a observância do devido processo legal. Com isso, a controvérsia ora analisada, com base no método hipotético-dedutivo, com a análise doutrinária e, no método indutivo, com base na pesquisa jurisprudencial, reside na amplitude que se deve atribuir aos princípios da ampla defesa e do contraditório, constantes no devido processo legal, em relação à facultatividade da presença do advogado nos processos administrativos disciplinares. Essa análise adentrou ao âmbito dos Tribunais Superiores, sendo que, de um lado, o Superior Tribunal de Justiça entendia ser obrigatória a presença do advogado em todas as fases do PAD (Súmula nº 343) e, de outro lado, o Supremo Tribunal Federal sustentou a ideia de que a ausência de defesa técnica por advogado não ofende os princípios previstos na Constituição Federal de 1988, a partir da Súmula Vinculante nº 5. Assim, o presente trabalho tem por escopo analisar a evolução dessa problemática, demonstrando diversos entendimentos sobre os princípios e o processo administrativo disciplinar, para ao fim questionar os pressupostos da Súmula Vinculante nº 5, atualmente em vigor.
The legal system governing disciplinary administrative sanctions contemplates the necessary requirements that must be observed when carrying out the imputation of an infraction to the administered, as for example, the initiation of the administrative disciplinary process and the observance of due process of law. The controversy now analyzed, based on the hypothetical-deductive methods, with the doctrinal analysis, and the inductive method, based on the jurisprudential research, lies in the extent to which the principles of ample defense and contradictory, due process of law, in relation to the optional presence of the lawyer in disciplinary administrative proceedings. This analysis entered the scope of the Superior Courts, and on the one hand, the Superior Court of Justice considered that the presence of the lawyer in all phases of the PAD (Summary 343) was mandatory and, on the other hand, the Federal Supreme Court the idea that the absence of technical defense by a lawyer does not offend the principles set forth in the 1988 Federal Constitution, based on Binding Summary 5. Thus, the present work aims to analyze the evolution of this problem, demonstrating several understandings about the principles and the administrative disciplinary process, in order to question the assumptions of Binding Summary nº 5, currently in force.
The legal system governing disciplinary administrative sanctions contemplates the necessary requirements that must be observed when carrying out the imputation of an infraction to the administered, as for example, the initiation of the administrative disciplinary process and the observance of due process of law. The controversy now analyzed, based on the hypothetical-deductive methods, with the doctrinal analysis, and the inductive method, based on the jurisprudential research, lies in the extent to which the principles of ample defense and contradictory, due process of law, in relation to the optional presence of the lawyer in disciplinary administrative proceedings. This analysis entered the scope of the Superior Courts, and on the one hand, the Superior Court of Justice considered that the presence of the lawyer in all phases of the PAD (Summary 343) was mandatory and, on the other hand, the Federal Supreme Court the idea that the absence of technical defense by a lawyer does not offend the principles set forth in the 1988 Federal Constitution, based on Binding Summary 5. Thus, the present work aims to analyze the evolution of this problem, demonstrating several understandings about the principles and the administrative disciplinary process, in order to question the assumptions of Binding Summary nº 5, currently in force.
Description
Keywords
processo administrativo disciplinar , contraditório , ampla defesa , súmula vinculante , defesa técnica , advogado , disciplinary administrative procedure , contradictory , ample defense , binding summary , technical defense , lawyer