Decisão judicial sobre políticas públicas: limites institucionais democráticos e constitucionais

• Ano de defesa: 2006
• Autor(a) principal: Machado, Edinilson Donisete
• Orientador(a): Vieira, Oscar Vilhena
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Direito
• Departamento: Faculdade de Direito
• País: BR
• Palavras-chave em Português: Princípio da igualdade; Decisao judicial; Politicas publicas; Separacao de poderes; Igualdade perante a lei
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Judicial Decision; Public Policies; Separation of powers; Equality principle
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO::DIREITO PUBLICO::DIREITO CONSTITUCIONAL
• Link de acesso: https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/7215

The analysis of concrete situations that admit resolution of difficult cases of public policies demonstrates a great complexity, whose comprehension requires the study of Institutions and patterns adopted constitutionality. The attribution of competence, its limitation and the exercise of the Political Power, represented by the principle of separation of powers, are important for the resolution and comprehension of these cases. In this context, the judicial decision of public policies promotes questions about the attribution of competence and their limits to the Jurisdictional Function. It is possible to observe that the judicial decision happens in a distinct way by the Juridical Positivism and by the denominated Post-positivism. By the doctrinaire and jurisprudence analysis, we intend to demonstrate that the Jurisdictional Function does not possess democratic legitimacy for the political options. Thus, we have concluded that the competence to promote the decisions of public policies depends of the choice of the model and of the democratic arrangements. The Constitutional text has established real limits to the legislator function by the Fundamental Rights. The ordainment opening for the moral topics in the decisions about the public policies is not possible for the Jurisdictional Function, considering that Judges are irresponsible democratically and can not take political decisions. By the democratic Institution point of view, they are limited by the options contained in the Constitution and as interpreters of the ordainment they are united to the equality principle