Animal law and the unconstitutionality of the 96th amendment to the Brazilian Constitution
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Outros Autores: | |
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 |
Resumo: | 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. |
id |
UFSC-3_e99276230af50f3330a718aab2ff47de |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/56223 |
network_acronym_str |
UFSC-3 |
network_name_str |
Sequência (Florianópolis. Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Animal law and the unconstitutionality of the 96th amendment to the Brazilian ConstitutionDireito animal e a inconstitucionalidade da 96a emenda à Constituição BrasileiraThis 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.O presente artigo de revisão utiliza o método interpretativo sistemático e, a partir de pesquisa bibliográfica e documental, a análise da constitucionalidade da Emenda Constitucional n. 96, de 6 de julho de 2017, que excepcionou a norma constitucional proibindo a prática de atividades que submetam os animais à crueldade, sempre que a atividade for considerada uma manifestação cultural registrada como patrimônio cultural imaterial. O artigo demonstra que as emendas constitucionais, promulgadas pelo poder constituinte derivado, não podem exceder os limites materiais de reforma constitucional estabelecidos em cláusulas pétreas, dentre eles, a estabilidade dos direitos e garantias individuais (art. 60, § 4º, IV da CF). O artigo analisa, ainda, os argumentos apresentados pela Ação Declaratória de Inconstitucionalidade n. 227.175/2017, concluindo pela inconstitucionalidade da referida Emenda, uma vez que a prática de atos cruéis contra os animais constitui uma ofensa direta ao direito fundamental individual desses animais a um meio ambiente sadio e equilibrado.Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina2018-06-18info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/sequencia/article/view/2177-7055.2018v39n78p19910.5007/2177-7055.2018v39n78p199Seqüência - Legal and Political Studies; Vol. 39 No. 78 (2018); 199-218Revista Seqüência: Estudos Jurídicos e Políticos; Vol. 39 Núm. 78 (2018); 199-218Seqüência Estudos Jurídicos e Políticos; v. 39 n. 78 (2018); 199-2182177-70550101-9562reponame:Sequência (Florianópolis. Online)instname:Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)instacron:UFSCporhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/sequencia/article/view/2177-7055.2018v39n78p199/36941Copyright (c) 2018 Seqüência: Estudos Jurídicos e Políticosinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessBorges, Daniel MouraGordilho, Heron José de Santana2018-10-10T14:29:53Zoai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/56223Revistahttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/sequenciaPUBhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/sequencia/oai||sequencia@funjab.ufsc.br2177-70550101-9562opendoar:2022-11-21T11:35:03.896578Sequência (Florianópolis. Online) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)true |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Animal law and the unconstitutionality of the 96th amendment to the Brazilian Constitution Direito animal e a inconstitucionalidade da 96a emenda à Constituição Brasileira |
title |
Animal law and the unconstitutionality of the 96th amendment to the Brazilian Constitution |
spellingShingle |
Animal law and the unconstitutionality of the 96th amendment to the Brazilian Constitution Borges, Daniel Moura |
title_short |
Animal law and the unconstitutionality of the 96th amendment to the Brazilian Constitution |
title_full |
Animal law and the unconstitutionality of the 96th amendment to the Brazilian Constitution |
title_fullStr |
Animal law and the unconstitutionality of the 96th amendment to the Brazilian Constitution |
title_full_unstemmed |
Animal law and the unconstitutionality of the 96th amendment to the Brazilian Constitution |
title_sort |
Animal law and the unconstitutionality of the 96th amendment to the Brazilian Constitution |
author |
Borges, Daniel Moura |
author_facet |
Borges, Daniel Moura Gordilho, Heron José de Santana |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Gordilho, Heron José de Santana |
author2_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Borges, Daniel Moura Gordilho, Heron José de Santana |
description |
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. |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-06-18 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/sequencia/article/view/2177-7055.2018v39n78p199 10.5007/2177-7055.2018v39n78p199 |
url |
https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/sequencia/article/view/2177-7055.2018v39n78p199 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.5007/2177-7055.2018v39n78p199 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/sequencia/article/view/2177-7055.2018v39n78p199/36941 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2018 Seqüência: Estudos Jurídicos e Políticos info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2018 Seqüência: Estudos Jurídicos e Políticos |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Seqüência - Legal and Political Studies; Vol. 39 No. 78 (2018); 199-218 Revista Seqüência: Estudos Jurídicos e Políticos; Vol. 39 Núm. 78 (2018); 199-218 Seqüência Estudos Jurídicos e Políticos; v. 39 n. 78 (2018); 199-218 2177-7055 0101-9562 reponame:Sequência (Florianópolis. Online) instname:Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) instacron:UFSC |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) |
instacron_str |
UFSC |
institution |
UFSC |
reponame_str |
Sequência (Florianópolis. Online) |
collection |
Sequência (Florianópolis. Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Sequência (Florianópolis. Online) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||sequencia@funjab.ufsc.br |
_version_ |
1789434803014074368 |