For the judge, in these cases, t if there is doubt about the constitutionality of the legislative measure. In other words, although the Legislature can change understandings discussed by the STF in binding precedents, it cannot use this prerogative abusively. “If there is a relative doubt that the law contravenes the Constitution itself, it is up to the Judiciary, when provoked, to express its opinion on its constitutionality and, consequently, to establish whether the binding precedent will prevail in the specific case”, pointed out the rapporteur.

Specific case The Court of Justice

Rio Grande do Sul had limited the loss of redeemed days by a convict to one third, according to the current wording of the LEP. The Rio Grande do Sul Public Defender’s Office filed an Rich People Number  extraordinary appeal on behalf of the convicted person to contest the ruling. Fux recalled that, in 2008, the STF only discussed whether the old legislative provision was constitutional.

This is because at the time defensive

Theories claimed an acquired right to redeemed days, as they were subject to specific rules. 0000000 In other words, the court did not debate the concept of serious misconduc Proportionality in relation to the loss of redemption. In this way, the minister found that the BTB directory change promoted in 2011 “did not even violate the provisions of the summary statement”, as it only referred to the redeemed sentence time that can be revoked in the case of serious misconduct.