Post by xyz3000 on Feb 12, 2024 1:14:08 GMT -5
Created to fill the gap in the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality, which cannot be applied to laws prior to 1988 nor against municipal acts, the ADPF — Argument of Failure to Comply with Fundamental Precepts had this Wednesday (7/12), its first trial of merit in the Federal Supreme Court. In the specific case, ADPF 33, the plenary of the Supreme Court unanimously declared the illegitimacy of a state decree that linked the salaries of employees at a state institute (Idesp) to the national minimum wage. The rapporteur of the action, minister Gilmar Mendes, reaffirmed his decision in the injunction and judged the ADPF to be valid. More important than the specific case, however, the fact that the ADPF finally had its profile defined was considered.
In the words of Minister Celso de Mello “with the vote of Minister Gilmar Mendes, the STF now begins a process of elaborate jurisprudential construction aimed at valuing the ADPF”. Other matters being judged by the STF at the ADPF are the issues of the possibility of abortion of anencephalic fetuses and the discussion on maintaining the postal monopoly of the Post and Estonia Email List Telegraph Company. The discussion held in the Supreme Court's judgment was around the appropriateness of the ADPF in the face of a state decree, prior to the 1988 Constitution. It was necessary to define whether the rule that fixed the remuneration of public servants linked to the minimum wage offends a fundamental precept. The Attorney General's Office ruled on the merits of the state's request.
The acceptance of the ADPF not only suspended the rule but also sent to the archive hundreds of lawsuits from public servants who relied on the rule. The action's rapporteur, Gilmar Mendes, as the Union's attorney general, was the one who produced the bills that regulated the application of the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (which became Law 9,868/99) and the ADPF (Law 9,882/99). The vote reproduced below, still without review, was classified by minister Celso de Mello as beautiful and brilliant: “The magnificent vote given was based on solid doctrinal foundations and opens new perspectives for the use of the ADPF, as it outlined in a clear and compatible manner with the system of positive constitutional law, the assumptions, requirements and scope of this very important constitutional instrument.
In the words of Minister Celso de Mello “with the vote of Minister Gilmar Mendes, the STF now begins a process of elaborate jurisprudential construction aimed at valuing the ADPF”. Other matters being judged by the STF at the ADPF are the issues of the possibility of abortion of anencephalic fetuses and the discussion on maintaining the postal monopoly of the Post and Estonia Email List Telegraph Company. The discussion held in the Supreme Court's judgment was around the appropriateness of the ADPF in the face of a state decree, prior to the 1988 Constitution. It was necessary to define whether the rule that fixed the remuneration of public servants linked to the minimum wage offends a fundamental precept. The Attorney General's Office ruled on the merits of the state's request.
The acceptance of the ADPF not only suspended the rule but also sent to the archive hundreds of lawsuits from public servants who relied on the rule. The action's rapporteur, Gilmar Mendes, as the Union's attorney general, was the one who produced the bills that regulated the application of the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (which became Law 9,868/99) and the ADPF (Law 9,882/99). The vote reproduced below, still without review, was classified by minister Celso de Mello as beautiful and brilliant: “The magnificent vote given was based on solid doctrinal foundations and opens new perspectives for the use of the ADPF, as it outlined in a clear and compatible manner with the system of positive constitutional law, the assumptions, requirements and scope of this very important constitutional instrument.
