As impropriedades da Emenda Constitucional nº 35/2001 ante ao princípio da moralidade administrativa.

Abstract

This study proposes to examine the unnecessary creation of Constitutional Amendment No. 35, December 20, 2001. This scope out the methods pursued in historical, comparative and interpretive, followed by a dialectical approach and deductive approach to the subject. Primarily, it is all made an approach about the functions and powers of parliament, especially the legal and ethical obligation to perform them under the principle of administrative morality, considering the achievement of the famous tripartite division of powers, in theory launched by Montesquieu in his book "The Spirit of Laws "and well protected in our Constitution of 1988 in its Article 2. Subsequently, there is a complete approach of parliamentary immunity in Brazil, covering the historical background, his familiarity with the jurisdiction of other countries, and all relations with related topics. The immunity provision is guaranteed since our first Constitution of 1824, until the last of 88, serving really as a tool for full democracy, but also as support for impunity of parliamentarians, who relied on it for their crimes have not even tried. After the shocking case of Congressman Pascoal of Acre, who mutilated his victims, a cheer arose in Brazil to end the institution of parliamentary immunity. It was in this climate that emerged Constitutional Amendment No. 35, which gave a new essay on the subject, limiting its protective character. The unnecessary amendment of that is reflected from the understanding that it was created with the romantic intention of achieving the desired justice, a fact that it was perfectly possible, just as only that lawmakers examine each applicant for the STF judge their peers with impartiality, without bias, partisanship and corporatism.