English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper critically analyzes the vote of the Supreme Court Minister Luis Roberto Barroso in the ADI 5526, which prescribes different precautionary measures for the arrest for congressmen and congresswomen, which would be subject to the revision of the Legislative Power. Furthermore, the purpose of parliamentary immunity is to protect the democratic autonomy of the legislature in relation to the judiciary, diminishing its power of interference. This paper concludes that the expansion of article 319 of the CPP does not restrict the constitutionally established guarantee of parliamentary immunity. Henceforth, ADI 5526 proves a symptomatic case of how the Federal Supreme Court treats other branches of government, especially the legislative branch. In this sense, this paper utilizes the perspective of Dimoulis and Lunardi, as well as Waldron, in order to understand the limits of judicial control of constitutionality in order to point out the difference between the Barroso’s vote and the jurisdictional political legitimacy of its control of constitutionality.

revista do direito público

A restrição da imunidade parlamentar na ADI 5526: uma crítica ao controle judicial de constitucionalidade a partir da análise do voto do Min. Luís Roberto Barroso