O preceito fundamental arguitivo na ADPF: uma vis??o da pragm??tica jur??dica

• Ano de defesa: 2016
• Autor(a) principal: Moraes, Jos?? Diniz de
• Orientador(a): Meira, Liziane Angelotti
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Cat??lica de Bras??lia
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa Strictu Sensu em Direito
• Departamento: Escola de Humanidade e Direito
• País: Brasil
• Palavras-chave em Português: Argui????o de descumprimento de preceito fundamental; Preceito fundamental arguitivo; Interpreta????o constitucional; Pragm??tica jur??dica; Implicaturas
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: DIREITO
• Resumo em Inglês: The main purpose of this work is to investigate the incidental scope of the new rules established by Law No. 9.882 / 99, which deals with the prosecution and judgment of the claim of non-compliance with a fundamental precept, which is part of art. 102, paragraph 1?? of the Federal Constitution, in the part concerning the concept of fundamental precept. It is based upon the premise that the traditional fundamental constitutional precepts cannot be confused with what it is called the demonstrative fundamental precepts, in other words, with those who lend themselves to the handling of the claim of non-compliance with a fundamental precept (ADPF). A semantic-pragmatic reading of the constitutional text, co-text and context concludes that a fundamental precept is not confused with any of the categories of constitutional norms, nor is it synonymous with constitutional norm, fundamental norm, constitutional principle, fundamental right or fundamental precept. The ADPF never had the redeeming purpose of the Federal Constitution assigned to it, let alone an instrument of protection of the sacred constitutional principles. Not by incompatibility or inadequacy, but by the simple fact that it was aimed at various goals. It was not intended to improve the system of concentrated control, it was not exclusively aimed at acts of public power, it did not differentiate between normative acts or concrete acts, and much less discriminate against fundamental norms of other constitutional norms. Its main objective was the observance and compliance with the fundamental precepts, that is, constitutional precepts that directly impose obligations and duties to any person, as long as they arise directly from the Constitution itself. A fundamental precept is a constitutional imposition that requires or prohibits a certain conduct. A constitutional norm that does not depend on legislative regulation nor the appeal to another normative system. And if only these are arguable, by going beyond the notion of fundamental precept fundamentally to broader fields, Law n??. 9.882 / 99 usurped a legislative function, since only by amendment to the Federal Constitution would it be possible to change the competence of the Federal Supreme Court. When contemplating interpretative elements beyond the text, with its theories, the Linguistic Analysis authorizes to specify the original notion of argumentative precept and to reveal, not a constitutional mutation, but a constitutional counterfeit, by elevating the ADPF to the level of other constitutional actions (ADI, ADC etc.), without a constitutional amendment and without the support on constitutional provisions. The ADPF is filed in almost all cases in which a constitutional obligation is directly violated, if there is no other constitutional provision for that specific measure. This is our notion of demonstrative fundamental precept.
• Link de acesso: https://bdtd.ucb.br:8443/jspui/handle/tede/2204

The main purpose of this work is to investigate the incidental scope of the new rules established by Law No. 9.882 / 99, which deals with the prosecution and judgment of the claim of non-compliance with a fundamental precept, which is part of art. 102, paragraph 1?? of the Federal Constitution, in the part concerning the concept of fundamental precept. It is based upon the premise that the traditional fundamental constitutional precepts cannot be confused with what it is called the demonstrative fundamental precepts, in other words, with those who lend themselves to the handling of the claim of non-compliance with a fundamental precept (ADPF). A semantic-pragmatic reading of the constitutional text, co-text and context concludes that a fundamental precept is not confused with any of the categories of constitutional norms, nor is it synonymous with constitutional norm, fundamental norm, constitutional principle, fundamental right or fundamental precept. The ADPF never had the redeeming purpose of the Federal Constitution assigned to it, let alone an instrument of protection of the sacred constitutional principles. Not by incompatibility or inadequacy, but by the simple fact that it was aimed at various goals. It was not intended to improve the system of concentrated control, it was not exclusively aimed at acts of public power, it did not differentiate between normative acts or concrete acts, and much less discriminate against fundamental norms of other constitutional norms. Its main objective was the observance and compliance with the fundamental precepts, that is, constitutional precepts that directly impose obligations and duties to any person, as long as they arise directly from the Constitution itself. A fundamental precept is a constitutional imposition that requires or prohibits a certain conduct. A constitutional norm that does not depend on legislative regulation nor the appeal to another normative system. And if only these are arguable, by going beyond the notion of fundamental precept fundamentally to broader fields, Law n??. 9.882 / 99 usurped a legislative function, since only by amendment to the Federal Constitution would it be possible to change the competence of the Federal Supreme Court. When contemplating interpretative elements beyond the text, with its theories, the Linguistic Analysis authorizes to specify the original notion of argumentative precept and to reveal, not a constitutional mutation, but a constitutional counterfeit, by elevating the ADPF to the level of other constitutional actions (ADI, ADC etc.), without a constitutional amendment and without the support on constitutional provisions. The ADPF is filed in almost all cases in which a constitutional obligation is directly violated, if there is no other constitutional provision for that specific measure. This is our notion of demonstrative fundamental precept.