A constitucionalidade, ou não, da alteração do artigo 103, da Lei n. 8.213/1991, por meio da Medida Provisória n. 871/2019, atual Lei n. 13.846/2019, frente aos pressupostos de relevância e urgência

• Autor(a) principal: Mendes, Matheus Damiani
• Data de Publicação: 2019
• Tipo de documento: Trabalho de conclusão de curso
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Universitário da Ânima (RUNA)
• Texto Completo: https://repositorio.animaeducacao.com.br/handle/ANIMA/5996
• topic: Medida provisória; Constitucionalidade; Direito previdenciário; Decadência

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to analyze the constitutionality of the amendment of article 103 of Law n. 8.213/1991, by means of an interim measure, in view of the requirements of urgency and relevance, indispensable elements for the use of this legislative process. METHOD: As for the level, it is exploratory. We sought to address the main elements related to the use of the Provisional Measure in the legislative process, especially when dealing with social security and the institute of decay. Regarding the approach, the research is qualitative, due to the analysis regarding the constitutionality of the Provisional Measure addressed here. The procedures used for data collection are documentary and bibliographic due to the use of searches in legislation, doctrine and jurisprudence. RESULTS: The use of this legislative method is a recurring practice in this area of social law. After redemocratization, with the end of the decree-law, the executive branch routinely uses political and economic motivations to justify the assumptions of urgency and relevance, especially against the background of the system's financial imbalance. CONCLUSION: It is possible to verify that on some occasions, through the constitutionality control of the Legislative Power itself, or of the Judiciary, attempts by the Executive were rejected for not fulfilling the assumptions introduced by Constitutional Amendment n. 32, 2001. Regarding the presence or absence of the assumptions of urgency and relevance, it can be seen that Provisional Measure n. 871/2019 was accepted and made into law by the legislatures in what it notes to article 103 of Law n. 8.213/1991. Despite having passed through the constitutional sieve of the Executive and Legislative, given the recent approval, there is no news or manifestations of the judiciary regarding the formal issue of this amendment, and there may be fragments of unconstitutionality, a condition already identified and removed by the judiciary. on other similar occasions. In addition to the unfavorable track record with regard to the assumption of urgency, it appears to be difficult to identify elements that might lead to its presence. This is a ten-year period and therefore long and deserves to be discussed calmly and sparingly, given the values involved. In this analysis, there is no immediate effect that can identify such urgency, unique condition and capital that authorizes the Executive to use the summary legislative process. Therefore, it is up to the Judiciary, as a whole and, especially to the Supreme Federal Court, guardian of the Constitution, in various forms of constitutional control, to ascertain, through concentrated or diffuse way, whether the channel used by the Executive to amend the article 103, of Law n. 8.213/91, is covered by the assumptions of urgency and relevance that authorized the use of provisional measure, in view of the provision contained in article n. 62, of the Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil of 1988.