The presidential appropriation is an ordinary instrument in the government's activity to allow the Executive Branch to spend money without the participation of the Congress. The research analyses the presidential appropriation of the presidents of Brazil since 90's. The central question studied is: Will the government, the parliament, the Union Audit Court accept a new reality in the public finance affairs, after the impeachment of former president Dilma Rousseff? Partial conclusions indicate that the federal budget will ever accept changes by additional credits, but with the obedience of the rule of law, the democracy and the previsibility of the public budget. However, it is not possible to confirm that the additional appropriations will be subject of more studies inside the budget process. If not be subject of more studies, the country would reestablish the permissiveness between the branches and the institutions.
The Constitutional Law has among its duties to deal with political and juridical crisis. That's the reason why it provides some mechanisms such as impeachment, martial law, etc. The logic is that in periods where the law is challenged, some exceptional tools are required. However, the rhetoric of crisis is increasingly, and brings the defense of ad hoc solutions. The Brazilian use of the impeachment's procedure gives the idea that weakening the applicable law is necessary to deal with a difficult situation. But the crisis, which could be of economical, social, political or juridical nature, emerges as the new order, implying that the maintenance of this rhetoric, causes the constitutional law to lose all its force and applicability. This work aims to discuss the use of the crisis rhetoric in the Brazilian case and its fragility.
Human rights, democracy and the rule of law appear in the international human rights system at the same time as cause and consequence of its expansion. Within these inflows, the Inter-American System emerges with the intention of corroborating and consolidating the democratic transition of the states of the region. These pretensions support the structure of a Latin-American ius commune which, in turn, encourage substantive parameters that, without overpowering the intrinsic plurality, preserve the core of the triad above. This is only possible through the multiple dialogues between national and international legal systems in order to draw this cosmopolitan democratic horizon. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how the Inter-American Court, through its militant jurisprudence, dialogue with constitutional internal systems in an attempt to set standards to achieve a common and shared notion of democratic exercise.
Brazil, in the last 30 years, has already gone through the impeachment of two presidents (Collor in 1992 and Dilma in 2015). Before and during the impeachment process of President Dilma, the discussion on judicial guarantees and respect for due process were referred to the Federal Supreme Court at ADPF 347, which sought to analyze the procedure established in Law 1079/50 and in MS 34130 who alleged the breach of the ex-President's rights of defense. Thus, the present study seeks to analyze the arguments of the defense of President Dilma and the opinion of the Federal Supreme Court regarding due process of law in the impeachment process, the principle of legality, the typicality of the crime, the impartiality of the judges and the foundation of the decision that judges the president for a crime of responsibility. It also aims to discuss whether the Brazilian impeachment is similar to the vote of distrust in a Parliamentary System.