Publication: A realidade subjacente ao axioma do legislador negativo
Loading...
Identifiers
Publication date
2017-02-13
Defense date
Advisors
Tutors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Impact
Export
Abstract
O presente artigo tem por pretensão teórica descrever o ambiente da jurisdição constitucional portuguesa sem, contudo, negligenciar ao dever de denunciar incoerências e inconsistências. Com efeito, algumas linhas se prestam a analisar a evolução da justiça constitucional, até o advento do Tribunal Constitucional, nos idos de 1982. Posteriormente, foi enfrentada a tese da dificuldade contramajoritária do Poder Judiciário, que funcionaria – em tese – como argumento não legitimador da atuação jurisdicional no sentido da invalidação de normas jurídicas por violação a preceitos constitucionais. Resumidamente, é inexorável afirmar que o exercício da jurisdição constitucional, no cenário jurídico-institucional transcontinental, apesar de predominante não é incontroverso.
A renitente ausência de unanimidade no que tange à prestação da jurisdição constitucional por órgãos integrantes do Poder Judiciário, se dá pela ausência de batismo popular àqueles que reputam inconstitucionais em caráter, por vezes, definitivo, normas jurídicas exaradas por órgãos exercentes da função típica legislativa e, de facto, detentores de legitimidade democrática. Nessa atoada, a legitimidade democrática da jurisdição constitucional é questionada em razão da questionada “dificuldade contramajoritária” do Poder Judiciário. Esse cenário decorre da circunstância fática de juízes não eleitos gozarem de competência para invalidar as decisões adotadas pelo legislador eleito, invocando, por vezes, como fundamento, normas constitucionais dotadas de abstração, vagueza e cariz principiológico. Nessa atoada, o artigo apresenta as incoerências e fragilidades da tese da dificuldade contramajoritária do Poder Judiciário e, ademais, promove uma análise crítica do dogma do legislador negativo.
The present article has the theoretical pretension to describe the environment of the Portuguese constitutional jurisdiction without, however, neglecting the duty to denounce inconsistencies and inconsistencies. Indeed, some lines lend themselves to analyzing the evolution of constitutional justice, up to the advent of the Constitutional Court, back in 1982.Subsequently, it was faced with the thesis of the countermajoritarian difficulty of the Judiciary, which would function - as a thesis - as a non-legitimating argument of the jurisdictional action in the sense of invalidation of legal norms for violation of constitutional precepts. Briefly, it is inexorable from an exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, it is not a transcontinental juridical-institutional course, although predominant it is not incontrovertible. The reluctant absence of unanimity is not the provision of constitutional jurisdiction by bodies that are members of the Judiciary, through the absence of popular knowledge in the field of copyright, for reasons of law, in fact, holders of democratic legitimacy. In this act, a democratic legitimacy of the constitutional jurisdiction is questioned because of the "countermajority difficulty" issue of the Judiciary. This scenario stems from the factual circumstance of unelected judges of competence to invalidate the decisions adopted by the elected legislator, sometimes invoking, as a foundation, constitutional rules endowed with abstraction, vagueness and principiological. In this act, the article presents as inconsistencies and fragilities of the thesis of the countermajoritarian difficulty of the Judiciary, and, in addition, promotes a critical analysis of the dogma of the negative legislator.
The present article has the theoretical pretension to describe the environment of the Portuguese constitutional jurisdiction without, however, neglecting the duty to denounce inconsistencies and inconsistencies. Indeed, some lines lend themselves to analyzing the evolution of constitutional justice, up to the advent of the Constitutional Court, back in 1982.Subsequently, it was faced with the thesis of the countermajoritarian difficulty of the Judiciary, which would function - as a thesis - as a non-legitimating argument of the jurisdictional action in the sense of invalidation of legal norms for violation of constitutional precepts. Briefly, it is inexorable from an exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, it is not a transcontinental juridical-institutional course, although predominant it is not incontrovertible. The reluctant absence of unanimity is not the provision of constitutional jurisdiction by bodies that are members of the Judiciary, through the absence of popular knowledge in the field of copyright, for reasons of law, in fact, holders of democratic legitimacy. In this act, a democratic legitimacy of the constitutional jurisdiction is questioned because of the "countermajority difficulty" issue of the Judiciary. This scenario stems from the factual circumstance of unelected judges of competence to invalidate the decisions adopted by the elected legislator, sometimes invoking, as a foundation, constitutional rules endowed with abstraction, vagueness and principiological. In this act, the article presents as inconsistencies and fragilities of the thesis of the countermajoritarian difficulty of the Judiciary, and, in addition, promotes a critical analysis of the dogma of the negative legislator.
Description
Comunicación presentada en el Seminario Internacional en Cultura de la Legalidad: Los desafíos del Estado de Derecho en el siglo XXI, celebrado en Getafe (Madrid) el 13 de febrero de 2017 y organizado por el Grupo de Investigación sobre el Derecho y la Justicia (GIDYJ) de la Universidad Carlos III de Madrid.
Keywords
Justiça constituciona, Jurisdição, Sistema de poder