Social Christian Party, Democratic Labor Party, Christian Labor Party v. President of the Republic and National Congress
Brazil Supreme Federal Court
Direct Action of Unconstitutionality no. 3741-2 (2006)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
In May 2006, the National Congress and president of Brazil signed and enacted Law Number 11.300/2006, which established new rules for political advertisement, funding, and accountability for election campaign expenditures. The government enacted this law during a series of corruption scandals involving the president and the president’s political party. The Social Christian Party, Democratic Labor Party, and Christian Labor Party (the political parties) (plaintiffs) filed direct actions of unconstitutionality, arguing that Law Number 11.300/2006 violated the constitutional principle of anteriority in election law guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of Brazil. The political parties argued that Law Number 11.300/2006 violated Article 16 by enacting a law that altered electoral procedures within one year of enactment and that Brazil was set to have national elections in October 2006, five months after the law’s enactment. The Supreme Federal Court also considered the constitutionality of Article 35-A of Law Number 11.300/2006, which prohibited the publication of electoral polls 15 days before the election date through any means of communications.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lewandowski, 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.