To circumvent the lack of space on the plenary agenda, the ministers of the (Supreme Court) intensified from 2009 the granting of monocratic decisions.
Survey made by Sheet It shows that the number of adis (direct action of unconstitutionality) and ADPFs (fundamental precept non -compliance argument) was only 6 in 2007 and reached a peak of 92 in 2020. Last year, 71 were.
The monocratic injunctions in this type of action have been discussing for years in the Brazilian judiciary. He took advantage of a gap to try to impose a setback on the Supreme, with the advancement of a PEC (proposal for amendment to the Constitution) that.
The new presidents of the House and (Republicans-PB) and (Brazil-AP Union) gave the Supreme Discourse messages last Saturday (1st). They did not specifically deal with monocratic decisions, but the.
The laws on constitutionality control actions, called ADI and ADPF, were approved by Congress in 1999. They emerged as a proposal of a group of jurists, whose rapporteur was the teacher (not yet minister).
The legislation defines rules for granting precautionary measures in these actions – a kind of provisional and urgent analysis of the process. By the text, the injunctions of ADIs can only be decided by the absolute majority of the Supreme (six ministers) or individually by the President of the Court during the recess of the judiciary.
For ADPFs, the law also defines that the injunctions may be granted individually by the rapporteur “in case of extreme urgency or danger of severe injury or even in recess.”
However, in 2009, with Gilmar already president of the Supreme, members of the court often complained about the difficulty of bringing their lawsuits to the plenary. Each then started to give his injunctions.
“It’s a distortion, in my view. While I had the cover on the shoulders and seat in the Supreme, in the 31st I was there, I never worked replacing the collegiate. This is a striking impropriety: then everything goes, it’s a perspective of each, “he told the Sheet the retired minister.
The minister recalls complaints from the plenary overload. “But a price is paid-and is modest-to live in a rule of law, that is, unrestricted observance to what is established,” he said.
Marco Aurélio gave 24 monocratic decisions in ADIs and ADPFs from 2000 to 2021, when he left the court.
The problem created by the profusion of monocratic injunctions and the lack of space in the plenary for referendum of decisions was the permanence for long periods of provisional decisions without endorsement of other ministers.
The scenario created distortions. For the lawyer and teacher, the most emblematic case was the Royalties ADI. Minister Cármen Lúcia suspended, in 2013, an excerpt from a law and eventually changed the rules on which states should receive the values arising from oil exploration.
To date, 12 years later, the injunction was not judged by the Supreme Plenary.
Streck, however, said the problem of monocratic decisions was solved when he changed his internal regulations at the end of 2022 to predict that.
There would be no reason, in his view, for Congress to intervene on the subject. “Prohibit [as decisões monocráticas]Zerving the system is a problem because, somehow, parliament is entering a area of constitutional jurisdiction, “says the lawyer.
He stated that Congress is one of the main targets of direct actions of unconstitutionality – mechanism used by parties and associations to request the overthrow of laws.
“Parliament is the greatest constitutionality control litigant because the minorities who lose go to the Supreme to try to correct what Congress would have done wrong,” Streck said.
Four Supreme Ministers heard by Sheetunder reserve, they agree that the change in the 2022 internal regulations, built by the now retired minister Rosa Weber, solved the problem of long -term monocratic injunctions. For them, there is no reason to discuss new changes on the subject.
Supreme individual injunctions reached the highest levels in 2020 to 2021, keeping the monocratic more than 80 per year. The period coincides with the government (PL) and a.
It was during this time that Minister Edson Fachin suspended Bolsonaro ordinances about weapons. Alexandre de Moraes also overthrew a provisional measure of Bolsonaro to.
Moraes also determined that the definition of circulation restriction measures to contain COVID-19.
In 2024, STF ministers gave 71 monocratic injunctions in ADIs and ADPFs. The record holder is the minister, with 21 individual decisions – which 15 were endorsed by the plenary and six others await trial.
The number includes decisions about parliamentary amendments. Dino is the rapporteur of three actions that question the lack of transparency of the resources indicated by the congressmen. There are cases where the same decision covers more than one process because they deal with the same subject.
Dino’s interlocutors point out that, in all cases, the minister only decided after hearing the PGR (Attorney General’s Office) and the other parties involved.
Of the 71 monocratic decisions of 2024, 38 were taken to the Supreme Plenary for referendum. The other 33 cases have not yet been tried, either by requests of view (more time for analysis) or highlights to take the process of the virtual plenary and lead to discussion in the physical plenary.
One of the 2024 monocratic decisions already confirmed by the plenary was a.
The decision generated a reaction in Congress. The then resident of the Chamber, (PP-AL), and allies articulated the vote of.
One of them tries to prohibit monocratic decisions of STF ministers suspending the effectiveness of laws or acts of the Presidency of the Republic and the National Congress. The other PEC gives power to the legislature to overthrow the Supreme Decisions.
