A argüição de descumprimento de preceito fundamental como instrumento do controle de constitucionalidade

Abstract

The Argument of Non-Compliance with Fundamental Precept came to the legal order with the purpose of completing the list of constitutional actions that protect the Democratic State of Law. In 1999, when the normative regulation by the ordinary legislator of the constitutional norm of limited effectiveness inserted in art. 102, paragraph 1 of the Federal Constitution, the possibility was brought against the act of Public Power, which violated the noblest precepts of the Constitutional Charter, filing an action before the Supreme Court to make preventive or repressive healing of the injury or even the constitutional controversy over a federal, state or municipal law or legislative act, including those prior to the Constitution. The active legitimacy for proposition is the same as for the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality, being the role described in art. 103 of CF / 88. Mister is the clarification of the strong discussion about the presidential veto that precluded universal legitimacy as existing in alien law. For the action there is no prescriptive deadline for the filing and by decision of the absolute majority of the STF Ministers, an injunction may be granted for the preliminary injunction in the plea of ​​non-compliance with a fundamental precept. Finally, the institute has been handled in a timid manner, with many refusals for disregarding the action. There are also those that seek to balance the harmony and independence between the powers of the State, sometimes shaken by the slips of the acts of the functions of the Public Power. It is true that the arguments that drew the most attention were those of number 45 and 54.