Estudo sobre a natureza jurídica do reconhecimento de inconstitucionalidade de normas pelos tribunais de contas

Abstract

The Courts of Auditors are extremely important institutions for external control and verification of the correct application of public resources. It is with the control exercised by the Organs of Accounts that one has the vision and control of the expenses made. It must be considered that the correct and transparent application of public resources are one of the support of the Democratic Rule of Law. Invariably in their constitutional mission, the Courts of Auditors face the most varied rules and regulations made by those responsible for determining where this or that value will be applied; this or that public purchase will be made. Thus, nothing more daily in the typical function of this important instrument of democracy the formal subsumption the legal norm to the facts and these in view of its validity before the entire legal system, especially the Federal Constitution. And it is precisely at this point of inflection that arises and problematic: If the norm "A", validating conduct of the public administrator contradicts the Federal Constitution, but until then the questioning before the Judiciary, holder of the final word of the unconstitutionality of the rule, what position the Courts of Auditors must adopt, since for the performance of their constitutional activities it is necessary to overcome the validity and effectiveness of the rule. And adopted is a position of removal from the rule in the present case, what is the legal nature of that decision. It seeks to answer this question based on the Federal Constitution and positions of the Supreme Court.