ALMEIDA, L. F.; http://lattes.cnpq.br/5095123253313123; ALMEIDA, Leonardo Freitas de.
Résumé:
Constitutional Jurisdiction presents itself as a warranty mechanism for Constitution's
ideological group against changes that doesn't reflects the evolutions of that group.
Such ideas retraces to ancient Greece, passing through French and America's
revolutions, accomplishing its goals nowadays by Constitutional Courts actions.
Theses organs have different kinds of jurisdiction, election ways and process
because of its specialties. Although several countries apply it according to their local
realities, there are certain minimum attributes for them to be really effectives. We
question if in Brazil, the responsible organ for such jurisdiction's execution -
Supreme Tribunal Federal - it is provided with these minimum attributes, being able
to be called a Constitutional Court. The research will be done trough the bibliographic
method and it will use the historical evolutive, comparative, juridical interpretation and
quantitative methods, in a way that approaches the theme efficiently and profoundly.
Going for this answer, first we defined and contextualized Constitution's and
Constitutional Jurisdiction's concepts, showing historical evolution and justifying its
need; after, we defined a theoretical model representing the minimal group of
possible attributes to such a jurisdiction. Holding this model, we classified the most
important countries for the development of the Constitutional Jurisdiction by such
standards - France, USA and Austria - and then we proceed to the same
classification of the national model. This was properly demonstrated from its historical
context, having its current constitutional jurisdiction organ, the STF, properly
analyzed and classified. We raised the problem of its execution, in a way that this
organ causes the current judiciary plastering because it accumulates many functions.
With this argument, we exposed the flaws of the national model, when compared to
the other models and we perceived that the current model represents a merge of
institutes form American an Austrian models, adding control functions from both.
Herewith, we concluded that STF represents only formally a Constitutional Court, but
materially it can't be framed as such, because it doesn't accomplishes effective
control, for its competences accumulation. Finally, we suggested that the organ
shard its ordinary competences with the STJ and restricts itself only to the control of
great concentrated or diffuse questions, so as to be qualified as a real Constitutional
Court.