A construction como método concretizador de direitos fundamentais: aplicação na jurisdição constitucional brasileira

The way of organization of the constitutional jurisdiction implies the possibility to extend the democratization of the same one in function of the popular participation in the active legitimacy to constitutional process (procedimentalist model) e, at the same time, to assure technical viable decisions fast and to the complex problems of the constitucional law (substancialist model). The comparison with the constitutional jurisdiction of U.S.A. becomes interesting from the knowledge of the wide power to decide experience of Supreme the Court that for a methodology of construction of rights and not simply of interpretation of the Constitution, brought up to date and reconstructed throughout its historical evolution the direction of the norms of basic rights and the North American principles constitutional. Construction while constitutional hermeneutic method of substancialist matrix works with techniques as the measurement of principles, the protection of interests of minorities and the entailing of the basic rights with values politicians, what it can be brought to evidence of the Brazilian constitutional jurisdiction in order to improve the construction of basic rights that comes being carried through for the judicial ativism in control of the diffuse and abstract constitutionality. To define the limits of construction is to search, on the other hand, a dialogue with the procedimentalists thesis, aiming at the widening of the participation of the citizen in the construction of the basic rights for the constitutional process and to argue forms of the society to evaluate the pronounced decisions activist in the controls diffuse and abstract of constitutionality

O piso salarial nacional: a valorização do professor na Constituição de 1988

The paper investigates the legal mechanisms used by the Legislature and the Executive to implement the constitutional principle of the teacher s minimum wage, which is proclaimed in the Constitution as a strategy of professional appreciation for this category. The text demonstrates that the legal mechanisms used to value the teacher were: the 1988 Constitution, the constitutional amendments to this Charter updated and modified the original text in relation to the matter, and finally, the Minimum Wage Law . Article nº 206 of 1988 s Federal Constitution established that basic education teachers, who work in public schools, would be entitled to a national minimum wage. Law nº 11.738/2008 ( Minimum Wage Law ) regulated the matter and made other determinations on the relationship between the State and the teachers such as the establishment of parameters for the distribution of the workload of teachers. Based on this law, since 2009 the minimum wage has been set annually by the Federal Government. However, state governments and municipalities throughout Brazil protested prescriptions contained in the Minimum Wage Law . In this context, some governors and mayors led the Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of this law. The complainants considered that there was unconstitutional by the following: definition of the teacher s workday, which in the complainants point of view was competence of local governments; ensuring that teachers receive salaries tied to the minimum wage with retroactive effect; transformation of the minimum wage in basic salary, lack of sufficient budget in the states and municipalities to honor with the new values to be paid to teachers and, finally, determining workload for the teacher to perform other activities besides classroom activities. At the trial held at the STF the majority of Ministers rejected the claim and considered that the Minimum Wage Law , taken together, was constitutional. However, this decision did not alter the position of the managers or the interpretation of the ministers who agreed with the unconstitutionality of some aspects of the law. This means that one law can present differences in interpretation between ordinary people and among members of the Judiciary. The search showed the following conclusions: the law is not a definitive parameter of justice, because it is deeply linked to various interests; the development, implementation, and judgment of laws dealing with minimum wage of teaching are linked to historical and cultural aspects of society; the demand for enhancement of teacher and setting a minimum wage has only emerged in the late twentieth century, a fact explained in this work based on data that indicate the recent concern of Brazilian State with schooling a phenomenon typically Republican and with the professionalization of teaching emerging concern from the knowledge society; the Legislative and Executive search mechanism to implement the minimum wage of the teachers because of the contemporary need for professionalization of teaching

O direito fundamental contra a autoincriminação: a análise a partir de uma teoria do Processo Penal Constitucional

The right against self-incrimination is a fundamental right that works in the criminal prosecution, and therefore deserves a study supported by the general theory of criminal procedure. The right has a vague origin, and despite the various historical accounts only arises when there is a criminal procedure structured that aims to limit the State´s duty-power to punish. The only system of criminal procedure experienced that reconciles with seal self-incrimination is the accusatory model. The inquisitorial model is based on the construction of a truth and obtaining the confession at any cost, and is therefore incompatible with the right in study. The consecration of the right arises with the importance that fundamental rights have come to occupy in the Democratic Constitutional States. In the Brazilian experience before 1988 was only possible to recognize that self-incrimination represented a procedural burden for accused persons. Despite thorough debate in the Constituent Assembly, the right remains consecrated in a textual formula that´s closer to the implementation made by the Supreme Court of the United States, known as "Miranda warnings", than the text of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that established originally the right against self-incrimination with a constitutional status. However, the imprecise text does not prevent the consecration of the principle as a fundamental right in Brazilian law. The right against self-incrimination is a right that should be observed in the Criminal Procedure and relates to several of his canons, such as the the presumption of not guilty, the accusatory model, the distribution of the burden of proof, and especially the right of defense. Because it a fundamental right, the prohibition of self-incrimination deserves a proper study to her constitutional nature. For the definition of protected persons is important to build a material concept of accused, which is different of the formal concept over who is denounced on the prosecution. In the objective area of protection, there are two objects of protection of the norm: the instinct of self-preservation of the subject and the ability to self-determination. Configuring essentially a evidence rule in criminal procedure, the analysis of the case should be based on standards set previously to indicate respect for the right. These standard include the right to information of the accused, the right to counsel and respect the voluntary participation. The study of violations cases, concentrated on the element of voluntariness, starting from the definition of what is or is not a coercion violative of self-determination. The right faces new challenges that deserve attention, especially the fight against terrorism and organized crime that force the development of tools, resources and technologies about proves, methods increasingly invasive and hidden, and allow the use of information not only for criminal prosecution, but also for the establishment of an intelligence strategy in the development of national and public security

O direito fundamental à igualdade no contexto da identidade sexual no Brasil: um estudo da situação jurídico-constitucional com ênfase no exame da suposta inconstitucionalidade por omissão do legislador civil

This dissertation analyses the Brazilian Supreme Court’s judgement in the Non-compliance Action of the Fundamental Precept 132/RJ and in the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality 4277/DF, which created in the country the same-sex civil union. In This decision, the STF interpreted according to the constitution Article 1.723 of the Civil Code, invoking several fundamentals reaffirmed in the Constitution. From all these laws invoked by the Supreme Court to support the pretorian creation, the content of consitutional Law regarding equality is the only that corresponds, and it is sufficient to evidence the necessity of the creation, by legislator, of the institute for civil rights, since the Constitution forbids distinctions that is not expressly provided for in the Constitution (Art. 3º, IV, of Federal Constitution). In this way, Article 226, § 3º is not an exception capable of satisfying the condition of the consitutional foresight because although it protect, according its content only the civil union “between the man and the woman”, it is not able to forbid the creation, by legislator, of another kinds of families, including the same-sex civil union. As such, the reasoning, now legitimate according to the legislator, is not support the creation of institute by Constitutional Court, because the Court may enforce the Law, interpreting in the purviews allowed by the legal text and its constitutionality. In regard to the civil union of individuos of the same sex, the Court could not deduce that such union was implied by Law, like the interpretation according to the Constitution given by judges, on grounds of semantic purviews of the words man and woman, existents in both articles. The Court could not created it either, exceeding the legal system role. So, upon the institute creation, the STF, exceeded two limits: the interpretation and Law enforcement.

A democracia participativa na jurisdição constitucional brasileira: o amicus curiae enquanto mediador democrático no controle concentrado de constitucionalidade no Supremo Tribunal Federal

This master thesis aims to research the tension established between the judicial review and democratic theory which was always present in the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. In this regard, the expansion of the Brazilian constitutional jurisdiction checked after the occurrence of the Federal Constitution of 1988 and the inertia of the Legislature in disciplinary relevant legal aspects of Brazilian society contributed to a hyperactivity of the Supreme Court. However, in a complex society of context, as is the Brazilian society, there are contained demands and political controversies that hardly would be well represented or resolved through the action of the Court of ministers at the expense of other government bodies. Among the supremacy of Parliament and the legitimacy deficit of these magistrates, is the constitutional text and the social fabric that makes this legal status of the political. Participatory democracy established by the guidelines of the Federal Constitution requires this perspective when the Supreme Court acting in place of concentrated constitutionality control. In a plural society, there is no reason to get rid of state decision moments popular participation. Lack the Supreme Court, this time, the democratizing perception that the institute brings to the interior of the Court, as state determination of space in which to come together and meet the aspirations of society and state claims. The dissertation investigates thus the possibility of amicus curiae Institute serve as a mediator of the democratic debate, to assist the Supreme Court in the preparation of the decision is, historically, that which is of greater legitimacy, from the perspective of a theory participatory democracy. Analyzes, likewise, the unfolding of abstract judicial review in the context of Brazilian law. Proposes, incidentally, a rereading of the separation of powers, with the call for the Judiciary be careful not to become the protagonist of national political decisions. It maintains, finally, that procedural opening the interpreters of the constitution, through the amicus curiae Institute, shows up as able to decrease the legitimacy deficit in the performance of the Brazilian Supreme Court.