Análise exploratória da (in)constitucionalidade do Acordo de Não Persecução Penal (ANPP) à luz do sistema acusatório, da imparcialidade jurisdicional objetiva e da independência funcional do Ministério Público
Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
Data
2023-12
Tipo de documento
Artigo Científico
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Área do conhecimento
Modalidade de acesso
Acesso fechado
Editora
Autores
FREITAS, Renan Budal de
Orientador
HONORATO, Gustavo Henrique de Sá
Coorientador
HONORATO, Gustavo Henrique de Sá
Resumo
Este artigo científico teve como problema se o art. 28-A, incisos III e IV; e §§ 5º, 7º e 8º, do Código de Processo Penal (CPP), introduzido pela Lei nº 13.964, de 24 de dezembro de 2019 (Pacote Anticrime), ofendem o sistema acusatório, o princípio da imparcialidade objetiva do órgão jurisdicional e a independência funcional do Ministério Público; e por objetivo geral explorar a problemática levantada. Adotou-se como hipótese de trabalho a inconstitucionalidade dos referidos dispositivos legais. Utilizou-se do método dedutivo, embasado em pesquisas bibliográfica pura e jurisprudencial nos Tribunais Superiores brasileiros. Expôs-se precedentes dos Tribunais Superiores brasileiros em relação à adoção do sistema acusatório à luz da Constituição Federal de 1988 (CF/88), e apontou-se a reiteração infraconstitucional deste sistema pelo Pacote Anticrime. Delimitou-se as características gerais do sistema acusatório, e correlacionou-o ao princípio da imparcialidade objetiva do magistrado e à independência funcional do Ministério Público. Delimitou-se o ANPP como negócio jurídico decorrente de uma norma mista, e expôs-se a sua função à luz da justiça consensual criminal. Comentou-se a Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade (ADI) 6.305. Explorou-se a (in)constitucionalidade dos trechos legais acima delimitados. Concluiu-se que a hipótese de trabalho restou parcialmente demonstrada. Entendeu-se que os §§ 5º, 7º e 8º do art. 28-A do CPP representam hipótese de controle de legalidade, não ofendendo a CF/88, enquanto que os incisos III e IV do art. 28-A do CPP ofenderiam o sistema acusatório, o princípio da imparcialidade objetiva do órgão jurisdicional e a independência funcional do Ministério Público, ofendendo a CF/88.
This scientific article had the problem of whether art. 28-A, items III and IV; and §§ 5th, 7th and 8th, of the Criminal Code Procedure (CPP), introduced by Law No. 13,964, of December 24, 2019 (“Pacote Anticrime”), offend the accusatory system, the principle of objective impartiality of the jurisdictional body and the functional independence of the brazilian Prosecution Office; and the general objective was to explore the issues raised. The unconstitutionality of the aforementioned legal provisions was adopted as a working hypothesis. The deductive method was used, based on pure bibliographical and jurisprudential research in Brazilian Superior Courts. Precedents of the Superior Courts in Brazil were exposed in relation to the accusatory system in light of the Federal Constitution of 1988 (CF/88), and the infraconstitutional reiteration of the aforementioned system was pointed out by AntiCrime Package (Pacote Anticrime). The general characteristics of the accusatory system were defined and correlated with the principle of objective impartiality of the magistrate and the functional independence of the brazilian Prosecution Office. The ANPP was defined as a mixed norm and its function was explained in the light of consensual (or negotiated) criminal justice. Commented on Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) 6,305. The hypothesis of (un)constitutionality of the legal sections delimited above was explored. It was concluded that the working hypothesis was partially demonstrated. It was understood that §§ 5, 7 and 8 of art. 28-A of the 3 CPP represent a hypothesis of legality control, not violating the CF/88, while items III and IV of art. 28-A of the CPP would offend the accusatory system, the principle of objective impartiality of the magistrate and the functional independence of the brazilian Prosecution Office, offending the CF/88.
This scientific article had the problem of whether art. 28-A, items III and IV; and §§ 5th, 7th and 8th, of the Criminal Code Procedure (CPP), introduced by Law No. 13,964, of December 24, 2019 (“Pacote Anticrime”), offend the accusatory system, the principle of objective impartiality of the jurisdictional body and the functional independence of the brazilian Prosecution Office; and the general objective was to explore the issues raised. The unconstitutionality of the aforementioned legal provisions was adopted as a working hypothesis. The deductive method was used, based on pure bibliographical and jurisprudential research in Brazilian Superior Courts. Precedents of the Superior Courts in Brazil were exposed in relation to the accusatory system in light of the Federal Constitution of 1988 (CF/88), and the infraconstitutional reiteration of the aforementioned system was pointed out by AntiCrime Package (Pacote Anticrime). The general characteristics of the accusatory system were defined and correlated with the principle of objective impartiality of the magistrate and the functional independence of the brazilian Prosecution Office. The ANPP was defined as a mixed norm and its function was explained in the light of consensual (or negotiated) criminal justice. Commented on Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) 6,305. The hypothesis of (un)constitutionality of the legal sections delimited above was explored. It was concluded that the working hypothesis was partially demonstrated. It was understood that §§ 5, 7 and 8 of art. 28-A of the 3 CPP represent a hypothesis of legality control, not violating the CF/88, while items III and IV of art. 28-A of the CPP would offend the accusatory system, the principle of objective impartiality of the magistrate and the functional independence of the brazilian Prosecution Office, offending the CF/88.
Palavras-chave
sistema acusatório, princípio da imparcialidade objetiva do órgão jurisdicional, independência funcional do Ministério Público, acordo de Não Persecução Penal, Inconstitucionalidade