Saídas institucionais ou a força do processo democrático na prevalência da Constituição?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21056/aec.v10i41.279Keywords:
Modalidades de constitucionalismo, Diálogo institucional. Supremacia do legislativo, Supremacia do judiciário, Direitos fundamentais, Democracia.Abstract
A busca de efetividade da Constituição com auxílio da jurisdiçãoconstitucional ainda não superou as dúvidas relacionadas à clássica dicotomia supremacia do legislativo ou do judiciário. Outras alternativas, todavia, vêm se apresentando para a construção democrática dos direitos fundamentais via jurisdição constitucional; alternativas que exploram o desenho de novas relações institucionais como a solução para a superação dos problemas de legitimidade da decisão. O texto explora os termos em que atualmente se põe o debate sobre a supremacia do legislativo e judiciário, a partir da perspectiva sugerida por Jeremy Waldron, para depois examinar as propostas das denominadas teorias dialógicas, notadamente a construção canadense nesse campo. Essas novas concepções demonstram que a efetividade constitucional pode ser construída não a partir de um desenho institucional que indique que estrutura detém a última palavra em questões de direitos — mas que ao contrário, a prática mais democrática possa resultar de um diálogo permanente entre as instituições formais de poder. Ao final, o trabalho demonstra que a prática do Supremo Tribunal Federal, muito inspirada ainda nas velhas concepções do princípio de equilíbrio e harmonia entre os poderes, não incorporou de forma mais significativa a dimensão dialógica nas questões de direitos fundamentais.
References
ACKERMAN, Bruce. We the People: foundations. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1995.
ACOSTA SÁNCHEZ, José. Formación de la constitución y jurisdicción constitucional. Fundamentos de la democracia constitucional. Madrid: Editorial Tecnos S/A, 1998. p. 35-42.
AHUMADA RUIZ, Marian. La jurisdicción constitucional en Europa. Madrid: Thomson Civitas, 2005.
BICKEL, Alexander. The Least Dangerous Branch The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.
COENEN, Dan T. Coenen. A Constitution of Collaboration Protecting Fundamental Values with Second-Look Rules of Interbranch Dialogue. Willian and Mary Review, v. 42, n. 5,
p. 1575-1870, 2001.
DIXON, Rosalind. Creating Dialogue about Socioeconomic Rights: Strong-Form Versus Weak-Forma Judicial Review Revisited. I–CON, v. 5, p. 391-418, july 2007.
GARAPON, Antoine. O juiz e a democracia: o guardião das promessas. Rio de Janeiro: Revan, 1999.
GARDBAUM, Stephen. The New Commonwealth Model of Constitutionalism. American Journal of Comparative Law, v. 49, n. 4, Fall 2001 [on line]. Disponível em: <http://ssrn.com/
abstract=302401>. Última consulta em: 20 fev. 2009.
HAIGH, Richard; SOBKIN, Michael. Does the Observer have an Effect?: an Analysis of the use of the Dialogue Metaphor in Canada’s Courts. Osgooede Hall Law Journal, v. 45, n. 1, p. 67-90.
HOGG, Peter W.; BUSHELL, Allison A. The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures (or perhaps tha Charter of Rights isn’t sucha a bad thing after all). Osgoode Law Journal, v. 35, n. 1, p. 75-124.
KELSEN, Hans. La garantía jurisdiccional de la Constitución (la justicia constitucional). Tradução de Rolando Tamayo y Salmorán. Ciudad de Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico, 2001. Tradução de La garantie jurisdictionelle de la Constitution (La justice constitutionelle).
KRAMER, Larry. The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
LIMA, Martonio Mont’Alverne Barreto. Judiciário versus executivo/legislativo: o dilema da efetivação dos direitos fundamentais numa democracia. Pensar, Fortaleza, v. 11,
p. 185-191, fev. 2006.
LINARES, Sebastián. La (i)legitimidad democrática del control judicial de las leys. Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2008.
MANFREDI, Christopher P. The Day the Dialogue Died: a Comment on Sauvé vs Canadá. Osgooede Hall Law Journal, v. 45, n. 1, p. 106-123.
MATHEN, Caríssima. Dialogue Theory, Judicial Review and Judicial Supremacy: a Comment on “Charter dialogue revisited”. Osgooede Hall Law Journal, v. 45, n. 1, p. 125-146.
PETTER, Andrew. Taking Dialogue Theory much too Seriously (or perhaps charter dialogue isn’t such a good thing after all). Osgooede Hall Law Journal, v. 45, n. 1, p. 147-167.
ROACH, Kent. Dialogue or defiance: Legislative reversals of Supreme Court Decisions in Canadá and the United States. I–CON, v. 4, n. 2, p. 347-370, Apr. 2006.
ROACH, Kent. The Supreme Court on Trial: Judicial Activism of democratic dialogue. Toronto: Irwin Law, 2001.
THAYER, Erza R. Judicial Legislation: its Legitimate Function in the Development of the Common Law. Havard Law Review, v. 5, n. 4, p. 172-201, Nov.1891.
TREMBLAY, Luc. The Legitimacy of Judicial Review: the Limits of Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures. International Constitutional Law Journal, v. 3, n. 4, p. 617-648, 2005.
TUSHNET, Mark. Alternative forms of judicial review. Michigan Law Review, v. 101, n. 8; ABI/INFORM Global, p. 2781-2802. Aug 2003.
TUSHNET, Mark. Interpretation in Legislatures and Courts: Incentives and Institutional Design. In: The Least examined branch: the Role of Legislatures in the Constitutional State.
Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
VALLE, Vanice Lírio do (Org.). VIEIRA, José Ribas et al. Ativismo Jurisdicional e o Supremo Tribunal Federal. Curitiba: Juruá. 2009. No prelo.
WALDRON, Jeremy. Principles of Legislation. In: BAUMAND, Richard W.; KAHANA, Tsvi (Ed.). The Least Examined Branch: the Role of Legislatures in the Constitutional State.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. p.15-32.
WALDRON, Jeremy. The core case against judicial review. The Yale Law Journal, v. 115, n. 6, 2006, p. 1346-1406. Disponível em: <http://yalelawjournal.org/115/6/toc.html>. Última consulta em: 26 jan. 2009.
WEBBER, Jeremy. Democratic Decision Making as the First Principle of Contemporary Constitutionalism in The Least Examined Branch: the Role of Legislatures in the Constitutional
State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. p. 411-443.
WEBBER, Jeremy. Institutional Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures in the Definition of Fundamental Rights; Lessons from Canada (and Elsewhere). Disponível em: http://www.austlii.
edu.au/au/journals/AJHR/2003/html>. (1 of 43) 23/1/2009 11.28;39.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish in this Journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the A&C - Administrative & Constitutional Law Review the right of first publication with the article simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons - Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International which allows sharing the work with recognition of the authors and its initial publication in this Journal.
- Authors are able to take on additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the paper published in this Journal (eg.: publishing in institutional repository or as a book), with a recognition of its initial publication in this Journal.
- Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish their work online (eg.: in institutional repositories or on their personal website) at any point before or during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as increase the impact and the citation of the published work (see theEffect of Open Access).
