The Brazilian Socialist Party and the Democratic Labor Party v. National Congress
Brazil Supreme Federal Court
Direct Action of Unconstitutionality no. 830 (1993)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Article 2 of the Temporary Constitutional Provisions Act provided for the holding of a national plebiscite in September 1993. The plebiscite aimed to decide whether Brazil should be a republic or constitutional monarchy. The plebiscite also aimed to decide whether Brazil should retain a presidential, separation-of-powers system or become a parliamentary democracy. Article 2 provided the Superior Electoral Court would regulate the plebiscite. Article 3 of the Temporary Constitutional Provisions Act also established a formal reform of the constitution should occur after the plebiscite and five years after the promulgation of the constitution. During the formal reform period, the Temporary Constitutional Provisions Act also provided an absolute majority of the members of the National Congress could amend the constitution instead of the ordinary process of amendment by a three-fifths vote. In 1992, the National Congress approved Constitutional Amendment Number 2, which changed the date of the plebiscite to April 21, 1993. The National Congress also provided that the Supreme Court of Justice would regulate the national plebiscite. In January 1993 and February 1993, the Brazilian Socialist Party and Democratic Labor Party filed two direct actions of unconstitutionality against Constitutional Amendment Number 2. The Brazilian Supreme Federal Court judged both challenges simultaneously.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Alves, J.)
Dissent (Velloso, J.)
Dissent (Aurélio, 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.