ARAÚJO, Y. P.; http://lattes.cnpq.br/3841816572533422; ARAÚJO, Yorrana Pires de.
Resumo:
Nepotism violates the constitutional principles of morality and impersonality, and may
constitute an act of administrative improbity provided for in Law n.º 8.429/92. Among the
applicable sanctions there is the suspension of political rights, whose implementation restricts
the right to vote and be voted. Considering that the elective mandate is given to those who are
in full enjoyment of political rights, it is asked: is it possible for the mayor to remain in office
after the definitive condemnation of the suspension of political rights for an act of
administrative impropriety? This research is justified by the losses caused to the public
management and to the citizens due to the legal insecurity and instability of the judicial
decisions. The present work seeks to analyze the legal basis that allowed the continuation of
the elective term of the Mayor of Aparecida-PB, after the definitive condemnation to the
suspension of political rights for an act of administrative improbity. Its specific objectives are
to identify the constituent elements of the unlawful act and the applicability of Law n.º
8.429/92 to political agents; understand the practice of nepotism in Public Administration and
the Mayor's accountability; and to study the positions of the Courts on the possibility of
retaining the unlawful agent in office. For that, the deductive approach method is used,
through a qualitative analysis, starting from a general study of the acts of administrative
improbity until the analysis of Public Civil Action nº 0004535-15.2012.815.0371. The
research technique is classified as exploratory, based on bibliographic literature and legal
documents. The procedural methods used were historical-evolutionary and exegetical-legal,
based on the relevant legislation and jurisprudence. The eminently majority understanding
indicates the loss of public service as a logical consequence of the suspension of political
rights, due to the absence of eligibility conditions. In the case of the municipal manager of
Aparecida-PB, it appears that the loss of the elective mandate would be disproportionate to
the unreasonable act practiced, and that the judgment quo could not innovate in compliance
with the sentence to apply a penalty not imposed in the decision. The judge's intention, in this
case, was to prevent the practice of future acts whose requirement is the exercise of political
rights. Therefore, considering the divergences regarding the effectiveness of the sanctions, it
is necessary to standardize the real scope of the sanction to suspend political rights.