Federal Council of the Brazilian Bar Association v. the President of the Republic – Precautionary Measure
Brazil Supreme Federal Court
Direct Action of Unconstitutionality no. 162-1 (1989)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Under Article 62 of the Brazilian Constitution, the president of Brazil may enact regulations known as provisional measures in instances of importance and urgency. Under the relevant constitutional language at the time of the case, the president was required to send the proposed provisional measures to the National Congress immediately after the publication of the provisional measures. At the time, the president could renew provisional measures every month under executive power granted to the president under the Constitution. After a national scandal involving the illicit transfer of money outside of Brazil, the president (defendant) enacted Provisional Measure Number 111/1989, creating a new system of temporary imprisonment. Provisional Measure Number 111/1989 permitted temporary imprisonment for crimes against financial crimes and for heinous crimes. The Brazilian Bar Association (plaintiff) filed a claim asking for a declaration of unconstitutionality. According to the Brazilian Bar Association, the National Congress should have regulated this type of temporary imprisonment through ordinary federal laws rather than a provisional measure enacted by the president.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Alves, J.)
Dissent (De Mello, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.