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.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Revista Opinião Jurídica (Fortaleza)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
CESSION OF COPYRIGHTS
The submission of articles to analysis for publication on Opinião Jurídica implies the author(s) transfers copyrights to Centro Universitário Christus – UNICHRISTUS for reproduction, publicizing, distribution, printing and publication, according to the Publication Norm 414R, Opin. Jur., Fortaleza, year 12, n. 16, p.1-414, Jan./Dec. 2014, costs to be bore by UNICHRISTUS, in whatever format or means that may or shall exist, in accordance to articles 49 and following of Federal Law 9.610/98.
1. In ceding copyrights, the author(s) agrees to do so in exclusivity, free of charge and for the totality of the work.
2. UNICHRISTUS may make the work, in its entirety or in parts, available for scholarly purposes, without altering its contents, except for small corrections that are deemed necessary.
3. The cession of copyrights is valid in all countries and for versions of the material in its original language or translated into a foreign language.
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.
