Acceso usuarios
Renato Gugliano Herani
La presente ponencia se construye de acuerdo con la legislación y experiencias del sistema de control de constitucionalidad brasileño. Propone un modelo de explicación dogmática de la interrelación entre dos institutos tradicionales del derecho aparentemente antagónicos: la prueba y la (in)constitucionalidad, resultando en la sistematización de la prueba de inconstitucionalidad en el derecho procesal constitucional brasileño. El estudio parte del reconocimiento de un déficit de investigación en Brasil sobre la práctica de la racionalidad probatoria en el juicio de la decisión de (in)constitucionalidad de las leyes. La atención se centra en las cuestiones probatorias y de hecho en el contexto del Supremo Tribunal Federal en el ejercicio de la revisión de la constitucionalidad de ley. Este problema coloca en el epicentro de la argumentación jurídica la inconstitucionalidad y la prueba
This thesis proposes to reduce the observations to the brazilian constitutional system in a model of dogmatic explanation of the interrelationship between two traditional institutions of law, apparently, antagonistic: the proof and the un constitutional. The result is the systematic of proof in the Brazilian right constitutional process. The study admits to have the investigative deficit in Brazil on the practice of evidential reasoning in making judgments of (un)constitutionality of laws. Which justifies asking about the ideas and trends related to a methodical approach to talk about the proof as one more element in the praxis of the decision about unconstitutionality of law in the context of Brazilian Constitutional Justice. The thesis intends to review a methodologically referred to this praxis.
The investigative attention focuses on the factual issues and evidentiary issues in the context of Supreme Court, while exercising control of the constitutionality of laws. Addressing this problem is to place the significance at the epicenter of unconstitutionality and also the institute of proof, which are discussed in terms of their own legal and constitutional arguments. The displacement studies of the right to the proof in the strict procedural law to the constitutional land is a deficit constitutional issue in the doctrine, that, in this work, expected to challenge
