Banca de DEFESA: JÚLIA TAÍS FERREIRA BELÉM CAMPOS

Uma banca de DEFESA de MESTRADO foi cadastrada pelo programa.
STUDENT : JÚLIA TAÍS FERREIRA BELÉM CAMPOS
DATE: 14/06/2023
TIME: 14:00
LOCAL: Ambiente virtual
TITLE:

THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT IN THE BRAZILIAN FEDERATION: THE COVID-10 PANDEMIC AS A TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACT OF CENTRALISM ON FEDERATIVE RELATIONS IN BRAZIL

KEY WORDS:

Federalism; democracy; constitutional jurisdiction; decentralization.

PAGES: 105
BIG AREA: Ciências Sociais Aplicadas
AREA: Direito
SUMMARY:

Covid-19 is a viral respiratory disease that has had a significant global impact, resulting in the death of hundreds of people around the world. In Brazil, the population had to face not only this unknown disease but also a battle between federal entities, becoming a central topic of debate. Federalism is a resilient democratic element that refers to the way power is shared among different entities within a specific territory. It is an ongoing process of improvement. However, Brazilian federalism has a centralizing aspect, as the supremacy of Union powers, as stated in the Federal Constitution, is evident, at the expense of the autonomy of states and municipalities. The Supreme Federal Court is the judicial body responsible for resolving issues related to conflicts of competence and for examining constitutional amendments to determine whether they compromise the essential core of federalism. The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court tends to centralize power around the Union, considered the sovereign entity, to the detriment of other federative entities. However, since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court has been changing its jurisprudential interpretation regarding conflicts of competence among federative entities, adopting new perspectives on the subject based on arguments and foundations that reflect the current reality of Brazilian society. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze more deeply the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court regarding Covid-19-related competence conflicts, especially direct actions of unconstitutionality 6.341 and 6.343, as well as the foundations presented by the ministers to support their decisions. This analysis reveals the possibility of a reversal of the prevailing centralism, with decentralizing decisions that favor states and municipalities, going against the Union's will. The present research concludes that the decisions rendered were appropriate and in accordance with constitutional precepts. This assertion should be analyzed considering that, in terms of health, the federative system of cooperation reflects the preference of the constituent of 1988, with the distribution of administrative competences to all federative entities, based on the principle of the predominance of interest (art. 23) and the power to legislate concurrently. The Union is responsible only for issuing general rules, while states and municipalities have the prerogative to complement federal legislation (art. 24 and 30, II). To achieve the objectives of this research, a bibliographic survey of a doctrinal and jurisprudential nature will be conducted on the topic, as well as the study of specific cases, especially the judgment of direct actions of unconstitutionality 6.341/DF and 6.343/DF. The research methodology will employ the deductive method with an explanatory aim, using the aforementioned doctrine and primarily relying on the arguments presented by the ministers of the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments. A logical evaluation of the conclusions will be made based on argumentation theory, seeking to identify if this represents the beginning of a new model of more cooperative federation among the entities.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Externo à Instituição - JOSÉ ARTHUR CASTILLO DE MACEDO
Interno - 3456619 - ANDERSON SOUZA DA SILVA LANZILLO
Presidente - 1254860 - FABRICIO GERMANO ALVES
Externo à Instituição - LEONAM BAESSO DA SILVA LIZIERO