COMPARATIVE LAW: THE MEANINGFUK ENGAGEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA AND ITS APPLICABILITY IN BRAZILIAN LAW
Meaningfuk Engagement. Unconstitutional State of Things. Structural Process.
Brazil and South Africa have similar social problems and face difficulties in implementing constitutional rights and guarantees. Faced with these difficulties, in Brazil the Judiciary often ends up meddling in the powers of the legislative and executive with the aim of bridging the gap between the constitutional text and reality. In addition to violating the principle of separation of powers, the resolutions applied by the Judiciary are not capable of resolving massive, systemic and widespread violations of fundamental rights resulting from actions and omissions by the Public Power, but only individual issues. In processes that deal with massive violations of rights, structural process techniques are often applied, which receive a lot of criticism precisely from the Judiciary, which is not technically qualified to do so, interfering in public policies, violating the principle of separation of powers and enable the backlash effect to occur. Given this scenario, the present work sought to study the congruence of the unconstitutional state of affairs, Colombian institute of structural process, and the meaningfuk engagement, South African institute of structural process, with the Brazilian constitution. Would these institutes protect the separation of powers and are they capable of guaranteeing constitutional rights that were once violated? To answer this question, bibliographical and jurisprudential research was carried out, including the decisions of the South African constitutional court that led to the development of the meaningfuk engagement. It was observed that the meaningfuk engagementis more appropriate to the Brazilian Constitution than the unconstitutional state of affairs and that in the City Statute there are legal provisions that enable the application of the South African institute in Brazil.