STF justices are leaning towards the adoption of a decision that will give new significance to the Court’s statements of unconstitutionality. With the change, even if a certain statute is suspended, STF will be able to decide, for instance, whether the effects of the statute can be accepted until the date of the final decision at the Court. The Brazilian Bar Association has entered a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Section 27 of Law 9868/99, which introduced the change Justice Sepúlveda Pertence, the assigned reporter, has not taken the matter to judgment yet.

Having been asked to ponder about the possible novelty, attorney Antônio Corrêa Meyer, of Machado, Meyer, Sendacz e Opice emphasized the fact that Section 27 of Law 9868/99 affords the Supreme Court rights to limit the statement of unconstitutionality of a law or norm in order to preserve legal confidence or in view of exceptional social interest, if the affirmative vote of at least eight justices is obtained.

Mr Meyer notes that the justices will need to be willing to restrict their own jurisdictional power if they are to challenge said Section. However, in view of the relevance of the challenged rule, he underlines that it is necessary to examine the several implications of the subject, including the fact that it seems inconsistent that a rule that is considered unconstitutional will generate effects and be valid until a certain date.

Sources:   Revista Consultor Jurídico, March 15, 2003
Date of insertion:   25/03/2003 - 17:25:24