No abstract

No abstract

Resumo: O presente artigo tem o objetivo de examinar a legitimidade ativa da Defensoria Pública no mandado de injunção coletivo. Para a consecução desta finalidade, o tema será abordado tanto do ponto de vista constitucional como do ponto de vista processual. Será estudado o vício de constitucionalidade formal da Lei 13.300/2016 no que tange a legitimidade ativa da Defensoria Pública no mandado de injunção coletivo. A necessidade de pertinência temática para a impetração e o tipo de interesse transindividual tutelado são questões que envolvem um profícuo debate constitucional que já foi objeto de exame pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal. Por derradeiro, abordaremos a possibilidade de litisconsórcio ativo no mandado de injunção envolvendo a Defensoria Pública e os demais legitimados extraordinários previsto na lei de regência da ação injuncional. Abstract: This article aims to examine the active legitimacy of the Office of the Public Defender in the collective writ of injunction. To achieve this purpose, the subject will be addressed both from a constitutional point of view and from a procedural point of view. This paper will study the formal constitutional vice of Law 13.300 / 2016 regarding the active legitimacy of the Office of the Public Defender in the collective writ of injunction. The need for thematic relevance to the filing and type of ward transindividual interest are issues involving a fruitful constitutional debate that has been the subject of examination by the Supreme Court. For last, we discuss the possibility of active joinder in the writ of injunction involving the Office of the Public Defender and the other extraordinary legitimated under the law of Regency injuncional action.

This paper aims to analyze the functioning of the theory of constitutional dialogue, in the context of the system of control of unconstitutionality by omission created in the Federal Constitution of 1988. To achieve this objective, the research is based on a review of the literature on the theme of constitutionalism and democracy, especially on the legitimacy of judicial review. Thus, the research begins with a historical perspective, with the review of the work of the National Constituent Assembly of 1987-1988. A relevant theoretical issue, the theme of the directive constitution, is dealt with in view of the relationship between constitutional directionalism, the legislator's attachment and unconstitutional omission. The default constitutionality control model provided for in the Brazilian Constitution of 1988 is problematizing the traditional Kelsenian view of Constitutional Courts as negative legislators. In this sense, the procedural instruments to combat legislative omission created by the constituent, especially the injunction, caused widespread doctrinal and jurisprudential controversy by enabling the realization of constitutionally dependent constitutional rights, which would make the courts positive legislators. The possibility of judicial review to generate a problem of democratic legitimacy is a subject debated from the monological and dialogical theory. The monological ones start from the premise that there is a final decision regarding constitutional interpretation. The controversy on this topic is to define which state body would be responsible for the 'final word' on the interpretation of constitutional norms: the political bodies or the courts. The perspective theory of constitutional dialogue has been welcomed in Brazilian doctrine as a synthesis of the controversy over whom the primacy of constitutional interpretation belongs: judges or legislators. In the present work we defend the hypothesis that the theory of constitutional dialogue is viewed in a benign way, mystifying the conflicts between powers. Regarding the applicability of dialogical techniques in the control of constitutionality by omission, the existence of a formal method of dialogue between the powers in Brazil is argued, which operates in a non-deliberative manner, contrary to what many scholars argue. The low effectiveness of the dialogue between the Supreme Court and the National Congress in the supply of legislative omissions is also discussed.