Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2013 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Faria, Adriana Ancona de
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Santos, Marcelo de Oliveira Fausto Figueiredo |
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| 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: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/6144
|
Resumo: |
This PhD dissertation examines decisions by the Brazilian Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal STF) on cases involving electoral law to assess whether they spring from judicial activism and whether such decisions have contributed to the strengthening or weakening of democracy in Brazil. The present study focuses specifically on eight landmark STF judicial review decisions, all issued after 1988, but also examines Electoral Supreme Court (Tribunal Superior Eleitoral TRE) rulings when they are relevant to the understanding of the STF decision under scrutiny. The overall analysis is based on a critique of the concept of Estado democrático de Direito as defined by the 1988 Federal Constitution and the judicial review system it establishes so as to define which practices could be read as judicial activism likely to present risks to democracy. It is suggested that STF inconsistency allows for abusive judicial interference in electoral matters. The above-mentioned landmark cases are discussed from the viewpoint of those theories of Law and of constitutional hermeneutics more influential in Brazilian judicial practice. Special attention is given to the works of Ronald Dworkin, John Hart Ely, Robert Alexy and Luis Roberto Barroso. The work of Conrado Hübner Mendes is also discussed as a theoretical tool within the effort to build up new criteria for judicial action in the framework of the separation of powers. As an alternative to the debate between democracy and constitutionalism, Mendes offers a criterion for court decisions based on the interaction between the Legislative and the Judiciary. The analyses of the cases points to a tendency to judicial activism by the STF (coupled with the TSE) on electoral matters. Such tendency is characterized by a piece-meal, arbitrary approach which runs counter to the Brazilian Constitutional order and violates the balance of powers by disregarding legitimate options by the majority of the legislature. As a response to the dangers such activism poses to democracy, this study argues for the need to have STF decisions based on clearly defined legal criteria, apt to demonstrate the legal value at stake in each case and which do not intrude upon legitimate Legislative autonomy |
