Democracia e controle de constitucionalidade: a legitimidade democrática da jurisdição constitucional brasileira

Abstract

One of the main goals of the contemporary state is the conciliation of constitutionalism and democracy. With the objective to confront the constitutional jurisdictional control with the idea of participative democracy, which is supported by a broader participation and larger control by the citizens over state’s decisions, the research proposes the analysis of various aspects that justify this control by the jurisdictional institutions. A comparative analysis among the constitutionality control models from several countries shows that the constitutional courts have specific systems of member designation, usually ascribed to political agents elected by the people. The peculiarity of these judges way of investiture show that constitutional courts do not entirely lack representativeness, because they are supported by popular vote, even if indirectly. Furthermore, it is possible to justify the jurisdictional control: (i) by the guarantee of minorities’ participation in the political process according to the rules of democracy; (ii) by the establishment of a decision process that favors the debate on constitutional matters; (iii) by the increase in access to justice, which is related to the opening of the interpretation process and constitutional control to individuals and different groups, and (iv) by the protection of fundamental rights. Dealing specifically with Brazilian constitutional jurisdictional control, although the democratic legitimacy of the control done by the Federal Supreme Court is being contested by legal doctrine, due to the way its members are designated, the acknowledgement of some changes made by the 1988 Constitution and various laws gave the current system a new face. First, it is possible to point out the enlargement of the legitimate list of people who can propose the “direct action of constitutionality” and the admission by the Federal Supreme Court of the collective injunction writ as a way to give minorities more access to the process of defending the Constitution. Second, it can be noticed that the exigency of publicity and motivation of judicial sentences and the allowance of creation of abstract control of constitutionality in the federal state circuit favors the decision process on constitutional matters. Third, it can be seen that the enlargement of the procedure of concentrated constitutional control made mainly by the Law 9,868 is associated also with the idea of the enlargement of participation in constitutional interpretation. At last, the democratic legitimacy of the increase of rights protection mechanisms may be seen in the Brazilian system by the appearance of the “direct action of unconstitutionality by omission,” the injunction writ and of the “action of unfulfillment of fundamental precept.”