Sistema ordinário de precatórios: análise do parágrafo 20 do artigo 100 da CRFB/88, implementado pela EC nº 94/2016, quanto à possibilidade de falta de comprometimento fiscal

• Autor(a) principal: Silva, Luiz Fernando Ferreira da
• Data de Publicação: 2017
• Tipo de documento: Trabalho de conclusão de curso
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UFRN
• Texto Completo: https://repositorio.ufrn.br/handle/123456789/44168
• topic: Parágrafo 20 do art. 100 da CRFB/88; Dividas em precatórios

In the course of the current constitutional order, numerous measures were implemented, such as: the EC in 20/1998, 30/2000, 37/2002, 62/2009 and 94/2016, all in order to improve the processing of requisitions. In consequence, it helped to mitigate/sove the problem of growing debts of the Federal, Federal District, State and Municipal goverments. Some initiatives have brought important contributions, such as the enhanced payment warrants and the strengthening of accountable measures of managers and Presidents of courts, for sloppiness, within their respective competencies, do not keep going with the requisitions were presented procedures; others, They opened the strong political influence of States and Municipalities in plead for their own cause, promoting constitutional regulations of specific rules that just procrastinate debts, institutionalizing real "defaults" to the requisitions were presented creditors. In this context, after the failure of the Constitutional Amendment 62/2009, whose Special Regime implemented was declared by the Supreme Court, in part, unconstitutional in the trial of Adis in 4,357 and 4,425, 94/2016 amendment was enacted, that among the positive points, fixed the period of 5 (five) years, until 2020, so that the State, in a tangible payment plan, could honor their requisitions were presented debts without compromising the essential functions and services to the administrative machines. It turns out that this Amendment added the 20th paragraph to article 100th of the Constitution of 1988, whose the rule extracted of this paragraph regulatory showed some kind of disharmony with the philosophy of this Amendment, since it allows the extension of requisitions were presented debts, year after year, through financing operations. In a systematic analysis of the amendment and of the regulatory mechanism in question, there is evidence that the rule has been designed for exceptional use, as an alternative to big debtors, which by financing a substantial percentage of requisitions were presented; they may leave the serious financial situation in which they find themselves. Turns out, that the way it is set, the rule can be used to allow any Public Power, even the ones that do not need, capture resources, through financing operations. This is the key point of this exploratory investigation, based on the deductive approach method and bibliographic procedure, whereas, the interdisciplinary study and jurisprudence homeland.