Interpretation in conformity with the Constitution is not a ‘no-holds-barred'
a reflection on the justification of the judge of guarantees case
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12662/2447-6641oj.v23i42.p106-126.2025Keywords:
manipulative decisions, decisional responsibility, judge of guarantees, legal justification, interpretation in conformity with the ConstitutionAbstract
Objective: This article aims to critically analyze the use of the technique of interpretation in conformity with the Constitution in the joint judgment of Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality 6.298, 6.299, 6.300, and 6.305 by the Federal Supreme Court, exploring how this technique was employed and the impacts of its application on the justification of judicial decisions.
Method: To achieve the proposed objective, the article presents the assumptions for the existence of interpretation in conformity with the Constitution, according to traditional doctrine and the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court. Additionally, it examines the limits of the technique and the emergence of manipulative decisions, using cases and doctrine. That is, a deductive approach methodology is used as the basis, starting from a bibliographic analysis.
Originality/Relevance: The originality of this study lies in the analysis of the distinction between interpretation in conformity with the Constitution and manipulative decisions, showing how the indistinct use of these techniques can compromise the justification and transparency of judicial decisions, bringing significant implications for the practice of constitutional review in Brazil.
Results: The article demonstrates that the violation of the assumptions and limits of interpretation in conformity with the Constitution leads to the adoption of manipulative decisions, which not only modify the meaning of legislative statements but also create problematic scenarios regarding the justification and legitimacy of judicial decisions.
Theoretical contributions: This study contributes to the debate on the need for greater clarity and rigor in the application of interpretation in conformity with the Constitution, proposing an approach that prioritizes transparency and dialogue in the justification of decisions, avoiding decision-making fungibility and allowing more effective social scrutiny of judicial practices.
References
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Gustavo da Silva Santos Fontes, Ubirajara Coelho Neto, Afonso Nonato do Nascimento Neto
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Licensing
According to the current submission policy, authors retain the rights to their works and grant the Revista Opinião Jurídica the right of first publication, with commercial rights reserved by the publisher under the terms of the non-commercial license used. Revista Opinião Jurídica uses a Creative Commons license. The works published are under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC-BY-NC-SA).
This license enables reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator. If you remix, adapt, or build upon the material, you must license the modified material under identical terms. CC BY-NC-SA includes the following elements:
BY: credit must be given to the creator.
NC: Only noncommercial uses of the work are permitted.
SA: Adaptations must be shared under the same terms.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONTENT
By submitting an article, the author(s) declare to have sole responsibility for the content of the piece and is(are), therefore, responsible for any judicial or extrajudicial measures referring to it.
1. In case of joint authorship, all authors are considered collectively responsible, except when proved otherwise.
