HUNTING DELTAN?

• Autor(a) principal: Menezes, David Sobreira Bezerra de
• Data de Publicação: 2024
• Outros Autores: Neiva, Horacio Lopes Mousinho, Godoy, Miguel Gualano de
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Revista Opinião Jurídica (Fortaleza)
• Texto Completo: https://periodicos.unichristus.edu.br/opiniaojuridica/article/view/4969
• topic: Tribunal Superior Eleitoral; impugnação de candidatura; decisão judicial; Deltan Dallagnol; Superior Electoral Court; candidacy disqualification; judicial decision; Deltan Dallagnol; Tribunal Superior Electoral; impugnación de candidatura; decisión judicial; Deltan Dallagnol

Objective: The decision that revoked the candidacy registration of former Federal Deputy Deltan Dallagnol sparked significant discussions in the country. Various legal experts expressed their support or objection to the vote of Minister Benedito Gonçalves, the rapporteur of the case at the Superior Electoral Court (TSE). Given the context in which the decision was made, questions arose about the soundness of its legal grounds, as well as hypotheses pointing to potential political persecution. Therefore, this study aims to: (i) examine the decision to analyze the compatibility of its arguments with current law; and (ii) investigate the possibility of a political persecution. Methodology: Using a bibliographic-documentary approach, this work applies deductive reasoning to achieve the first objective and inductive reasoning for the second. Results: It was found that the grounds presented in the decision violate constitutional rights and are incompatible with the jurisprudence of both the TSE and the Supreme Federal Court (STF). However, this strictly legal research was unable to conclusively determine whether the decision constituted political persecution or not. Contributions: Despite not fully achieving one of its objectives, this research contributes to fostering critical thinking regarding decisions by higher courts. Additionally, by providing objective criteria for assessing decision soundness, it enables methodologically grounded critiques of superior court positions. Ultimately, there is a systemic benefit for society, as this work represents a form of citizen oversight over institutions.