Animal law and the unconstitutionality of the 96th amendment to the Brazilian Constitution

• Autor(a) principal: Borges, Daniel Moura
• Data de Publicação: 2018
• Outros Autores: Gordilho, Heron José de Santana
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Sequência (Florianópolis. Online)
• Texto Completo: https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/sequencia/article/view/2177-7055.2018v39n78p199

This review article uses the systematic interpretive method, and from a bibliographical and documentary research, analysis of the constitutionality of Constitutional Amendment No. 96 of July 6, 2017, which excepted the constitutional norm that prohibits the practice of activities that subject the animals to cruelty, whenever the activity is considered a cultural manifestation registered as intangible cultural heritage. The article demonstrates that constitutional amendments promulgated by the derived constituent power can not have the material limits of constitutional reform set forth in substantive clauses, including the stability of individual rights and guarantees (article 60, § 4, IV of the CF). The article also analyzes the arguments presented by the Declaratory Action of Unconstitutionality n. 227,175 / 2017, concluding that the said Amendment is unconstitutional, since the practice of cruel acts against animals constitutes a direct offense against the individual fundamental right to a healthy and balanced environment.