A mediação como instrumento concretizador do direito fundamental à saúde: uma alternativa à judicialização de conflitos Natal 2013

In Brazil, the 1946 Constitution enshrined the right to health, having it defined as the possession of the best state of health that the individual can achieve. Already the Federal Constitution of 1988 lifted that right to the status of fundamental social right, which transcends the effectiveness and cure of the disease is based on the joint liability of public entities for the provision of a quality service, efficient and prioritize human dignity and comprehensive evaluation of patients. According to the World Health Organization, the definition of health, first characterized as the mere absence of disease, has become recognized as the need to search for preventive mechanisms to ensure the welfare and dignity of the population. Garantista this context, the growing seem lawsuits that deal with the implementation of public policies, especially in the area of the right to health, the omission of which the Government can result in the risk of death. Hence the concern of law professionals about whether or not the intervention of the judiciary in cases that deal with providing material benefits of health care. It claims to break the principle of separation of powers, disobedience to the principle of equality and the impossibility of judicial intervention in the formulation of public policy to try and exclude the liability of public entities. In contrast, the judiciary has repeatedly guardianships granted injunctions or merit determining the supply of materials indicated by the medical benefits that accompany the treatment of patients who resort to a remedy. In this context, mediation, object of study and resolution presented in this work, is presented as an instrument conciliator between the reserve clause and the right to financially possible existential minimum, as it seeks to serve all through rationalization of health services , avoidance of negativistic influence of the pharmaceutical industry, with prioritizing the welfare of the individual and the quality of relationships. This is alternative way to judicialization that in addition to encouraging and developing active citizen participation in public policy formulation also allows the manager to public knowledge of community needs. It is in this sense that affirms and defends the right to health is no longer the mere provision of medical care and prescription drugs, but a dialogue conscious existential minimum to guarantee a dignified life

As sanções políticas, mecanismo de intervenção do estado na ordem econômica e tributária

This work pursues to analyze the sanctions of restrictive nature, which are characterized by impeding the business of the contributor in debt. Such sanctions known as political sanctions, are truly understood as an indirect way of tax enforcement, liable to cause problems to the private entity in curtailing, the initiative freedom, opposing the Article 5°, item XIII and Article 170, single paragraph of CF/88. As the State gets the several means to assure the economic order effective performance, it is up to the State to restrain the economic power abuse that objects to the marketing domination, to the ending of competition, and arbitrary increasing of profits (CF Article 173, § 4ª.) Therefore, it depends on the state, besides maintaining the economic order, to ensure a fair distribution of tax burden and act under the command of the Democratic State of Law principles. In order to make the tax collection effective, specific in some cases, the administrative fiscal agent uses coercive, excessive, and institutional, in imposing sanctions which causes constraint, maculating the contributor s essential rights, that matters of the necessity to force the tax credit ending. The principle of the free initiative and free competition, which are intended to be analyzed in this study, comes from a constitutional context and it will be reviewed in its systematic relations and with another rules, in order to evidence, at the end, the occurrence of an intervention towards the economic order when the State makes do of political sanctions as a tool for the tax credit effectiveness, infringing the Tax and Constitutional principles

Iniciativa popular na concretização do direito fundamental à democracia

The Participatory Democracy is disseminated throughout the Principle of Popular Sovereignty. Since it spurs the participation of the people in the exercise of political power, it emerges as a conciliatory alternative to the Representative Regime - one of questionable legitimacy in account of the distortion it causes on the will of the public. It does so specially vis-à-vis the legislative, where the law is created. It s known that our Constitution (arts. 1º e 14, CF/88) provides for the means through which the members of the public may take part in the political process of the country, for it consecrates the plebiscite, the referendum and the popular initiative, all of them incipiently regulated by the Lei nº 9.709/98. It s our task, thus, to inquire, through deductive reasoning as well as the legal exegeses, the enforceability of the Popular Initiative as a means of popular emancipation, given that it enables the citizens to conscientiously participate in the public sphere. It has also an educational ethos which builds the capacity of individual to act, and, therefore, through thoughtful choices, enhance the legal system. Furthermore, the Lei da Ficha Limpa (LC nº 135/2010) surely represents a milestone in the Brazilian political history, since it accrued from a new way of social interaction allowed by the usage of communication technology on the pursuit of political morality. As a matter of fact, this bill is a clear example of how a legal act was legitimately proposed through Public Initiative. Hence, it s beneficial to actually make use of the Public Initiative, under the influence of the New Constitutional Hermeneutics, with a view to supporting social claims and promoting a dialogical relationship with the State in order to help it in the decisionmaking process. Thereat, we can achieve important civic spaces through which the fundamental right to democracy shall be materialized, tearing apart the old paradigms of inequality and, thus, promoting social justice

Parâmetros de concretização judicial do direito fundamental à saúde no fornecimento de medicamentos

In Brazil, social rights have always been considered secondary legal categories, whose implementation could wait for the pending of political decisions. At the end of the Second World War, International Law emphasizes the protection of human beings, raising his dignity as a legal pillar of the legal orders and one of the main foundations of Constitutions. At the post-positivism Constitutionalism, the realization of social rights receives special attention with the assumption of supremacy and normativity of the Constitutions, while the judiciary participates in the realization of democracy, not only as applicator of laws, but also as the guardian of constitutionality of the acts and administrative omissions, creatively contributing to the constitutional achievement, filling gaps and normative state omissions. In this aspect, the supply of medicines, whose costs can not be supported by the individual, keep a close connection with the right to life, health and dignity of the human being, as the subject of numerous lawsuits directed against the Public Administration. Such phenomenon has caused intense debate regarding judicial activism and legitimacy of these decisions, particularly on the need to define what are the limits and possibilities considering the principle of separation of powers and the principle of reserve of the possible; bieng this the problematic developed in this research. Thus, this research aims to verify the legitimacy of judicial decisions that determines to the Public Administration the compulsory providing of medicine to those who can not afford the cost of their treatment, as well as, contribute to the dogmatic constructions of parameters to be observed by judicial interference. Regarding the methodology, this research has an investigative and descriptive caracter and an theoretical approach based on bibliographical data collection (judicial and doutrine decisions) that received qualitative treatment and dialectical approach. As a result, it is known that the judicial decision that determines the supply of medicines to those individuals who can not afford them with their own resources is legitimate and complies with the democratic principle, not violating the principle of separation of powers and the reserve of the possible, since the judicial decison is not stripped with an uniform and reasonable criteria, failing to contain high burden of subjectivism and witch signifies a possible exacerbation of functions by the judiciary, suffering, in this case, of requirement of legal certainty. It is concluded that the Court decision that determines the government the providing of medicine to those who can not afford the cost of treatment should be based on parameters such as: the protection of human dignity and the minimum existencial principle, the inafastable jurisdiction principle; compliance critique of the possible reserve principle; subsidiarity of judicial intervention; proportionality (quantitative and qualitative) in the content of the decision; the questioning about the reasons for non-delivery of the drug through administrative via; and, finally, the attention not to turn the judiciary into a mere production factor of the pharmaceutical industry, contributing to the cartelization of the right to health

Guerra contra as drogas: uma análise sob a perspectiva do princípio da proporcionalidade

As substâncias entorpecentes acompanham a humanidade desde o início da civilização. No entanto, várias delas foram consideradas proscritas ao longo do tempo. Seu combate foi inaugurado na comunidade internacional a partir do começo do século XX. No início, tinha o condão eminentemente moral, porquanto a proibição encerrava, por princípio, a proteção da ética ameaçada pelo padrão desviado do consumo de estupefacientes. Na década de 1970, a guerra contra as drogas, expressão cunhada nesse período, evoluiu para se tornar o meio pelo qual o consumo seria mitigado. Dez anos mais tarde, ante à impossibilidade de sucumbir o narcotráfico, passou a ser um fim em si mesma o novo argumento para os esforços militares dos Estados Unidos da América. A criminalização das substâncias entorpecentes consideradas ilícitas é fundamento jurídico da guerra contra as drogas. Esse modelo proibicionista encontra argumento no direito penal do inimigo, segundo o qual o Estado pode, em situações que exponham a coletividade a grave perigo, negar à determinada categoria de criminosos (os inimigos) as garantias inerentes ao direito penal, cabendo-lhes apenas a coação estatal. Mesmo tendo consumido trilhões de dólares, encarcerado aos milhões e custado a vida de milhares de pessoas, pode-se dizer que a guerra contra as drogas não reduziu a oferta e o consumo de substâncias entorpecentes consideradas ilícitas, nem mitigou os danos delas decorrentes pelo contrário, tornou-se um problema de segurança pública. Assim, impõe-se a verificação da constitucionalidade da norma penal que fundamenta a guerra contra as drogas, sob ponderação do princípio da proporcionalidade. Referido postulado cobra que a norma seja adequada, cumprindo a finalidade pretendida, necessária, não havendo meio menos gravoso à obtenção do mesmo fim, e proporcional, estrito senso, que a sanção imposta ao indivíduo seja equivalente ao dano que se quis prevenir. Em matéria penal há de se incluir um outro elemento, a ponderar se as consequências da proibição em matéria penal, por si só, são mais graves que os consectários dos fatos que se pretendem proibir - exige-se que a lei seja socialmente menos ofensiva. A norma penal que fundamenta a guerra contra as drogas não se mostrou hábil a mitigar os danos sociais delas decorrentes sendo, por isso, inadequada. Existem meios alternativos à criminalização mais eficientes à esse objetivo, pelo que se faz desnecessária. Na medida em que estupefacientes mais nocivos à coletividade são considerados lícitos, a criminalização de drogas menos danosas se mostra desproporcional. E, uma vez que dela resultam graves danos à sociedade, não atende ao critério da menor ofensividade social. É, portanto, inconstitucional