Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Articles

Vol. 7 No. 3 (2020): Brazilian Journal of Empirical Legal Studies

Secularism and the Supreme Court: a study on the decisions of the brazilian Supreme Court related to religious issues and secularism

DOI
https://doi.org/10.19092/reed.v7i3.388
Submitted
February 9, 2019
Published
2020-09-07

Abstract

This empiric research aims to study the decisions from the Brazilian Supreme Court regarding religion, specifically those regarding the concept of secularity and how that is integrated into the votes by the ministers. For that, a qualitative and quantitative empiric research will be conducted, through the analyses of the votes made available on the jurisprudence search platform on the tribunal’s internet site. Initially, for that end, the votes will analyses and, after discarding the ones judged to be non-relevant originated by searching errors, a classification criterion will be created based on the arguments presented on the votes. Based on said criteria, the votes will be classified and, based on that classification, the voting profile of the ministers will be analyzed. The initial hypothesis will be based on the votes cast by the 11 ministers in the ADI 4439. At the end of this research, it was concluded that the ministers preferably do not present any clarifications for the meaning of secularity in their votes or, second as often, present clarifications based on their own personal convictions. Lastly, more infrequently, they will provide doctrinaire references to sustain their positions on the meaning. Several qualitative aspects were identified on the votes, beyond those defined in the initial objectives, such as a tendency of increasing frequency for the security issue in processes on the supreme court. As for the qualitative aspects, due to the low number of processes (11) and votes (30), it was only possible to reach a confidence level of 91.3% (p = 0,.08213), relatively low, however meaningful enough so the initial hypothesis could not be refuted.

References

  1. BRASIL (2018a). Supremo Tribunal Federal. Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade n° 4439. Requerente: Procurador Geral da República. Requeridos: Presidente da República, Congresso Nacional. Relator: Min. Roberto Barroso. Processo em andamento. Disponível em: <http://www.stf.jus.br/portal/processo/verProcessoAndamento.asp?incidente=3926392>. Acesso em: 24 set. 2018.
  2. BRASIL. (2018b). Habeas Corpus n° 152.752. Paciente: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Coator: Vice-Presidente do Superior Tribunal de Justiça, Congresso Nacional. Relator: Min. Edson Fachin, Tribunal Pleno. Brasília, 04/04/2018. Publicado em 27/06/2018. Disponível em: <http://www.stf.jus.br/portal/processo/verProcessoAndamento.asp?incidente=5346092>. Acesso em: 24 set. 2018.
  3. BRASIL. (2018c). Pesquisa de Jurisprudência. Disponível em: <http://www.stf.jus.br/portal/jurisprudencia/pesquisarJurisprudencia.asp>. Acesso em: 26 jun. 2018.
  4. BRASIL. (2018d). Pesquisa de Jurisprudência. Dicas de Pesquisa. Disponível em: <http://www.stf.jus.br/portal/cms/verTexto.asp?servico=jurisprudenciaPesquisaGeral&pagina=ajudaPesquisaJurisprudencia>. Acesso em: 24 set. 2018.
  5. BRASIL. (2018e). Regimento Interno: [atualizado até julho de 2016] – consolidado e atualizado até maio de 2002 por Eugênia Vitória Ribas. Brasília: STF, 2016. Disponível em: <http://www.stf.jus.br/arquivo/cms/legislacaoRegimentoInterno/anexo/RISTF.pdf>. Acesso em: 21 set. 2018.
  6. CANOTILHO, José Joaquim Gomes. (1993). Direito Constitucional. 6. ed. Coimbra: Almedina.
  7. CONJUR. (2017). Senso Incomum. Doutrina: direito ou dever de apontar os erros do STF?. Disponível em: <https://www.conjur.com.br/2014-abr-24/senso-incomum-doutrina-direito-ou-dever-apontar-erros-stf>. Acesso em: 12 nov. 2017.
  8. FERNANDES, Bernardo Gonçalves. (2017). Curso de Direito Constitucional. 9. ed. rev., ampl. e atual. Salvador: Juspodivm.
  9. HARBELE, Peter. (2002). Hermenêutica Constitucional: a sociedade aberta dos intérpretes da constituição. Porto Alegre: Sérgio Fabris.
  10. HART, H. L. A. (2009). O Conceito de Direito. São Paulo: WMF Martins Fontes.
  11. KURU, Ahmet T. (2007). Passive and Assertive Secularism: Historical Conditions, Ideological Struggles, and State Policies toward Religion. World Politics. Cambridge University Press, v. 59, n. 4, jul, p. 568-594.
  12. STRECK, Lenio Luiz. (2013). Jurisdição constitucional e decisão jurídica. 3. ed. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais.
  13. WEINGARTNER NETO, Jayme. (2013). Comentário ao artigo 19, I. In: CANOTILHO, J. J. Gomes; MENDES, Gilmar F.; SARLET, Ingo W.; STRECK, Lenio L. (Coords.). Comentários à Constituição do Brasil. São Paulo:Saraiva/Almedina.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.